<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>Evaluate efficacy and safety of an investigational, twice daily sustained-release (SR) paracetamol formulation in subjects with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).<b>METHODS: </b>In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel study (NCT02311881), subjects with hip or knee OA were randomly assigned to SR paracetamol 2 × 1000 mg BID, extended-release (ER) paracetamol 2 × 665 mg TID or placebo for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline through 12 weeks in WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index pain. Secondary efficacy endpoints included other WOMAC categories, Global Patient Assessment of Osteoarthritis (GPAOA), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and responder rate.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 676 subjects were included in the analysis population (mITT). Mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale was not significantly greater with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo (LS mean [SE]: -28.25 [1.697] vs. -25.74 [1.713]; p = .163). Reduction in WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscales with SR paracetamol BID was not significantly greater than with placebo (p = .089 and .054, respectively). Significant improvement over placebo was observed for GPAOA (p = .043), PGART (p = .012), and proportion of high-improvement responders (p = .015). Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of paracetamol.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Improvement in WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscales from treatment with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo in subjects with knee or hip OA was not significant. SR paracetamol BID demonstrated significant improvements in GPAOA, PGART, and high-responder rate. High placebo response may have contributed to lack of statistical separation on some outcomes. All interventions were generally well tolerated.
OBJECTIVES: S-flurbiprofen plaster (SFPP) is a novel non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) patch, intended for topical treatment for musculoskeletal diseases. This trial was conducted to examine the effectiveness of SFPP using active comparator, flurbiprofen (FP) patch, on knee osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms.
METHODS: This was a phase III, multi-center, randomized, adequate, and well-controlled trial, both investigators and patients were blinded to the assigned treatment. Enrolled 633 knee OA patients were treated with either SFPP or FP patch for two weeks. The primary endpoint was improvement in knee pain on rising from the chair as assessed by visual analogue scale (rVAS). Safety was evaluated through adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: The change in rVAS was 40.9 mm in SFPP group and 30.6 mm in FP patch group (p < 0.001). The incidence of drug-related AEs at the application site was 9.5% (32 AEs, 29 mild and 3 moderate) in SFPP and 1.6% in FP patch (p < 0.001). Withdrawals due to AE were five in SFPP and one in FP patch.
CONCLUSIONS: The superiority of SFPP in efficacy was demonstrated. Most of AEs were mild and few AEs led to treatment discontinuation. Therefore, SFPP provides an additional option for knee OA therapy.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine sulfate (GS) compared to placebo in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 164 patients with Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2 or grade 3 radiographic knee OA and moderate-to-severe knee pain (mean ± SD global pain score 62.1 ± 11.3 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients were randomized to receive either combined treatment with CS (1,200 mg) plus GS (1,500 mg) or placebo in a single oral daily dose for 6 months. The mean change from baseline in the VAS global pain score was set as the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in the investigator's global assessment of disease activity, total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), pain and function subscale scores on the WOMAC, responder rates based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2004 response criteria, and rescue medication use. Adverse events were also recorded. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board was instituted to ensure patient safety and data accuracy. Results Intriguingly, in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, CS/GS combination therapy was inferior to placebo in the reduction of joint pain (mean ± SD change in VAS global pain score over 6 months −11.8 ± 2.4 mm [19% reduction] in patients receiving CS plus GS versus −20.5 ± 2.4 mm [33% reduction] in patients receiving placebo; peak between-group difference in global pain score at 6 months 8.7 mm [14.2%], P < 0.03), but no between-group differences were seen in the per-protocol completers. Both placebo treatment and CS/GS combination treatment improved to a similar extent the total WOMAC score as well as the pain and function WOMAC subscale scores, both in the mITT population and in the per-protocol completers. Neither the OMERACT-OARSI responder rate nor the frequency of rescue medication use differed between the treatment groups. Severe adverse events were uncommon and equally distributed. Conclusion The results of this trial demonstrate a lack of superiority of CS/GS combination therapy over placebo in terms of reducing joint pain and functional impairment in patients with symptomatic knee OA over 6 months. Further research might fully elucidate the suitability of CS/GS combination therapy in patients with OA.
BACKGROUND: Glucosamine, chondroitinsulfate are frequently used to prevent further joint degeneration in osteoarthritis (OA). Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) is a supplement containing organic sulphur and also reported to slow anatomical joint progressivity in the knee OA. The MSM is often combined with glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate. However, there are controversies whether glucosamine-chondroitin sulfate or their combination with methylsulfonylmethane could effectively reduce pain in OA. This study is aimed to compare clinical outcome of glucosamine-chondroitin sulfate (GC), glucosamine-chondroitin sulfate-methylsulfonylmethane (GCM), and placeboin patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) Kellgren-Lawrence grade I-II.
METHODS: a double blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 147 patients with knee OA Kellgren-Lawrence grade I-II. Patients were allocated by permuted block randomization into three groups: GC (n=49), GCM (n=50), or placebo (n=48) groups. GC group received 1500 mg of glucosamine + 1200 mg of chondroitin sulfate + 500 mg of saccharumlactis; GCM group received 1500 mg of glucosamine + 1200 mg of chondroitin sulfate + 500 mg of MSM; while placebo group received three matching capsules of saccharumlactis. The drugs were administered once daily for 3 consecutive months VAS and WOMAC scores were measured before treatment, then at 4th, 8th and 12th week after treatment.
RESULTS: on statistical analysis it was found that at the 12th week, there are significant difference between three treatment groups on the WOMAC score (p=0.03) and on the VAS score (p=0.004). When analyzed between weeks, GCM treatment group was found statistically significant on WOMAC score (p=0.01) and VAS score (p<0.001). Comparing the score difference between weeks, WOMAC score analysis showed significant difference between GC, GCM, and placebo in week 4 (p=0.049) and week 12 (p=0.01). In addition, VAS score also showed significant difference between groups in week 8 (p=0.006) and week 12 (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: combination of glucosamine-chondroitinsulfate-methylsulfonylmethane showed clinical benefit for patients with knee OAK ellgren-Lawrence grade I-II compared with GC and placebo. GC did not make clinical improvement in overall groups of patients with knee OA Kellgren Lawrence grade I-II.
Objective To compare the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms. Method In this 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to 200 mg celecoxib once daily, 800 mg ibuprofen three times daily or placebo. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of celecoxib to ibuprofen in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (scored 0-100). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and upper gastrointestinal tolerability. Results A total of 388 patients were treated (celecoxib n = 153; ibuprofen n = 156; placebo n = 79). Mean difference (95% confidence interval) between celecoxib and ibuprofen in the Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain was 2.76 (-3.38, 8.90). As the lower bound was greater than -10, celecoxib was non-inferior to ibuprofen. The WOMAC total score was significantly improved with celecoxib and ibuprofen, versus placebo. Patients receiving celecoxib were significantly more satisfied (versus placebo) in 10 of 11 measures on the Pain Satisfaction Scale versus three measures with ibuprofen. Upper gastrointestinal events were less frequent with celecoxib (1.3%) than ibuprofen (5.1%) or placebo (2.5%). Conclusion Celecoxib was well tolerated and as effective as ibuprofen for symptoms associated with knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00630929.
OBJECTIVE:To assess efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain. METHODS:Patients (n = 990) were randomized (1:1:1) to tapentadol PR, oxycodone controlled release (CR; reference compound for assay sensitivity), or placebo for a double-blind 3-week titration and 12-week maintenance period. Primary efficacy end-points were change from baseline in average pain intensity at week 12 of maintenance (US end-point) and over the entire maintenance period (non-US end-point) with “last observation carried forward” as imputation method for missing scores. RESULTS:Both primary end-points were not significantly different for tapentadol PR nor for oxycodone CR vs placebo at week 12 (least squares [LS] mean difference = –0.3 [95% CI = –0.61–0.09];p = 0.152 and 0.2 [95% CI = –0.16–0.54];p = 0.279, respectively) and over the maintenance period (LS mean difference = –0.2 [95% CI = –0.55–0.07];p = 0.135 and 0.1 [95% CI = –0.18–0.44];p = 0.421, respectively). Considerably more patients receiving tapentadol PR than oxycodone CR completed the trial (58.3% vs 36.6%). This is consistent with better results with tapentadol PR on the overall health status (PGIC) compared to oxycodone CR. Indeed, respectively, 56% and 42.5% rated at least “much improved” at the end of treatment. Incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were higher for both active treatments compared to placebo. Tapentadol PR was associated with a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile with incidences of constipation (17.9% vs 35%) and of the composite of nausea and/or vomiting (23.8% vs 46.8%) significantly lower vs oxycodone CR (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The study did not demonstrate assay sensitivity. The finding that both primary end-points for tapentadol PR were not met can, thus, not be interpreted. Tapentadol PR was better tolerated than oxycodone CR, largely due to fewer gastrointestinal side-effects.
BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) patches are convenient for use and show much less gastrointestinal side effects than oral NSAIDs, whereas its percutaneous absorption is not sufficient for the expression of clinical efficacy at satisfactory level. S-flurbiprofen plaster (SFPP) has shown dramatic improvement in percutaneous absorption results from animal and clinical studies. In this study, the efficacy and safety of SFPP were compared with placebo in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) to determine its optimal dose. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparative study.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrolled 509 knee OA patients were treated with placebo or SFPP at 10, 20, or 40 mg applied on the affected site once daily for 2 weeks. The primary endpoint for efficacy was improvement in knee pain on rising from the chair assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The other endpoints were clinical symptoms, pain on walking, and global assessment by both investigator and patient. Safety was evaluated by observing adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: VAS change in knee pain from baseline to trial end was dose-dependent, least squares mean was 29.5, 31.5, 32.0, and 35.6 mm in placebo and SFPP 10, 20, and 40 mg, respectively. A significant difference was observed between placebo and SFPP 40 mg (P=0.001). In contrast, the effect of SFPP at a dose ≤20 mg was not significantly different from that of placebo. The proportion of the patients who achieved 50% pain relief was 72.4% in 40 mg and 51.2% in placebo (P<0.001). In all other endpoints, SFPP 40 mg showed significant improvement compared with placebo. The incidence of AEs was not different across all four groups, and no severe AEs were observed.
CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant pain relief was observed in all groups including placebo. Especially 40 mg showed remarkable pain relief in not only primary endpoint but also all the other endpoint with significant differences over placebo. The safety profile of SFPP 40 mg was not different from that of placebo. Therefore, 40 mg was determined as the optimal tested dose.
Objectives Chronic osteoarthritis of knee is very commonly encountered in clinical practice. Pain relief and restoration of physical function are the targets of therapy. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of tapentadol with etoricoxib in the management of osteoarthritis of knee. Methods This is a randomised, open labelled, controlled study in which patients received either tablet tapentadol (100 mg twice daily) or etoricoxib (30 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. Follow-up was done after 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th weeks of initiation of treatment and also after 2 weeks of treatment completion. Assessment of improvement in pain perception on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) sub-score for stiffness and physical function were performed. Results 108 patients receiving tapentadol and 110 patients receiving etoricoixb were analysed on Intention to Treat basis. Steady improvement was seen in VAS and WOMAC scores in both the groups, though there was no significant difference between the groups. Clinical Global Impression measured by physician showed significant difference between groups with greater number of patients experiencing at least satisfactory response at the end of the study in the tapentadol group (p = 0.036). The total number of adverse events was less with tapentadol than etoricoxib. Conclusions Tapentadol is as effective as etoricoxib in the management of mild to moderate grades of chronic osteoarthritis of knee with lower incidences of adverse effects.
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>Undenatured type II collagen (UC-II) is a nutritional supplement derived from chicken sternum cartilage. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of UC-II for knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain and associated symptoms compared to placebo and to glucosamine hydrochloride plus chondroitin sulfate (GC).<b>METHODS: </b>One hundred ninety one volunteers were randomized into three groups receiving a daily dose of UC-II (40 mg), GC (1500 mg G & 1200 mg C), or placebo for a 180-day period. The primary endpoint was the change in total Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from baseline through day 180 for the UC-II group versus placebo and GC. Secondary endpoints included the Lequesne Functional Index (LFI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the WOMAC subscales. Modified intent-to-treat analysis were performed for all endpoints using analysis of covariance and mixed model repeated measures, while incremental area under the curve was calculated by the intent-to-treat method.<b>RESULTS: </b>At day 180, the UC-II group demonstrated a significant reduction in overall WOMAC score compared to placebo (p = 0.002) and GC (p = 0.04). Supplementation with UC-II also resulted in significant changes for all three WOMAC subscales: pain (p = 0.0003 vs. placebo; p = 0.016 vs. GC); stiffness (p = 0.004 vs. placebo; p = 0.044 vs. GC); physical function (p = 0.007 vs. placebo). Safety outcomes did not differ among the groups.<b>CONCLUSION: </b>UC-II improved knee joint symptoms in knee OA subjects and was well-tolerated. Additional studies that elucidate the mechanism for this supplement's actions are warranted.<b>Trial Registration: </b>CTRI/2013/05/003663 ; CTRI/2013/02/003348 .
<b>OBJECTIVES: </b>To compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.<b>METHODS: </b>Double-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ≥301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.<b>RESULTS: </b>The adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>CS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.<b>Trial Registration Number: </b>NCT01425853.
Evaluate efficacy and safety of an investigational, twice daily sustained-release (SR) paracetamol formulation in subjects with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS:
In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel study (NCT02311881), subjects with hip or knee OA were randomly assigned to SR paracetamol 2 × 1000 mg BID, extended-release (ER) paracetamol 2 × 665 mg TID or placebo for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline through 12 weeks in WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index pain. Secondary efficacy endpoints included other WOMAC categories, Global Patient Assessment of Osteoarthritis (GPAOA), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and responder rate.
RESULTS:
A total of 676 subjects were included in the analysis population (mITT). Mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale was not significantly greater with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo (LS mean [SE]: -28.25 [1.697] vs. -25.74 [1.713]; p = .163). Reduction in WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscales with SR paracetamol BID was not significantly greater than with placebo (p = .089 and .054, respectively). Significant improvement over placebo was observed for GPAOA (p = .043), PGART (p = .012), and proportion of high-improvement responders (p = .015). Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of paracetamol.
CONCLUSIONS:
Improvement in WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscales from treatment with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo in subjects with knee or hip OA was not significant. SR paracetamol BID demonstrated significant improvements in GPAOA, PGART, and high-responder rate. High placebo response may have contributed to lack of statistical separation on some outcomes. All interventions were generally well tolerated.
