OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of valdecoxib 40 mg q.d. (with a second dose on day 1) with diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of acute low back pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Patients with acute low back pain, class 1a or 2a (Quebec Task Force), with a visual analog scale score >/=50 mm (on a 100-mm scale) and moderate to severe pain on a categorical scale, were randomized to valdecoxib 40 mg q.d. (with a second dose on day 1) or diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. for 7 days (170 patients per group). The primary efficacy end point was change in pain intensity (visual analog scale, mm) from baseline to day 3 for the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Least squares mean reductions in pain intensity from baseline to day 3 were similar for valdecoxib (-42.02 mm) and diclofenac (-41.43 mm). Valdecoxib was comparable to diclofenac as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the estimated difference (0.59 mm; 95% confidence interval, -3.40 to 4.59 mm) was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10 mm. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar for valdecoxib (28%) and diclofenac (26%). No statistically different moderate or severe upper gastrointestinal adverse events were reported, although they were numerically greater for diclofenac (8) than for valdecoxib (3). DISCUSSION: Valdecoxib 40 mg q.d. (with a second dose on day 1) provides effective relief for acute low back pain, and was at least as efficacious as diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., with a nonsignificant but numerically lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events.
BACKGROUND: NSAIDs are widely used for patients presenting with low back pain. A quick-release formulation of lornoxicam, a potent NSAID from the chemical class of oxicams, offers a faster onset of pain relief compared with the standard tablet formulation. METHODS: Time to onset of pain relief with lornoxicam was compared with the quick-release formulation of diclofenac potassium in acute low back pain in a randomised, double-blind, multicentre study. 220 patients received either lornoxicam 24 mg or diclofenac potassium 150 mg on day 1 followed by lornoxicam 8 mg twice daily or diclofenac potassium 50 mg twice daily for 5 days. Efficacy outcomes included time to onset of pain relief, as measured by the stopwatch method (primary outcome), pain intensity, pain relief, rescue medication, ability to perform daily activities and global evaluation of the study medication. RESULTS: The time to onset of pain relief ratios between diclofenac potassium/lornoxicam was 1.03 (95% CI 0.91, 1.26) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.93, 1.29) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, respectively, demonstrating the non-inferiority of lornoxicam (defined by lower limits of the 95% CIs >0.80). Time to onset of pain relief was shorter with lornoxicam (30 minutes) compared with diclofenac potassium (36 minutes). The difference was not statistically significant (ITT analysis). A higher magnitude of analgesic effect associated with better global evaluation of the study medication for lornoxicam was also demonstrated. The drugs were equally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Lornoxicam administered as a quick-release formulation was shown to be non-inferior to the equivalent formulation of diclofenac potassium in terms of onset of pain relief and more effective on most of the major standard efficacy outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 60 mg/day in patients with established chronic low back pain (CLBP) were compared with those of diclofenac 150 mg/day in a 4-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Four hundred and forty-six adult patients with CLBP (Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders Class 1 or 2) and with worsening pain upon discontinuation of pre-study analgesic medication were enrolled in the study. The study primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in Low Back Pain Intensity Scale (LBP-IS) score over the 4-week treatment period. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints included: changes in Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale (LBP-BS) scores. Early efficacy was assessed using PGART and LBP-IS scores 4 h after the first dose on the mornings of Days 1, 2 and 3. The overall safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 60 mg/day during 4 weeks of treatment were also assessed. RESULTS: The least-squares mean time-weighted change from baseline LBP-IS score over 4 weeks was -32.94 mm (95% CI -36.25, -29.63) for etoricoxib, indicating substantial efficacy in relief of pain. The treatment difference for the primary outcome was 2.51 mm (95% CI -1.50, 6.51), fulfilling the prespecified equivalence criterion of 95% confidence interval wholly within +/- 10 mm. Etoricoxib improved all secondary and other efficacy outcomes. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients with one or more clinical adverse events (AEs) (etoricoxib 35%, diclofenac 39%), or the proportion of patients who discontinued due to AEs (etoricoxib 7%, diclofenac 5%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm that, for adult patients with CLBP, etoricoxib 60 mg once daily over 4 weeks is effective for relief of pain and improvement of physical function and comparable to high-dose diclofenac 150 mg daily.
BACKGROUND: Valdecoxib, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitor, is indicated for relief of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and primary dysmenorrhea. Therapeutic doses of COX-2 specific inhibitors are as effective as nonspecific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in reducing inflammatory pain while sparing the gastrointestinal and platelet toxicity associated with nonspecific COX-1 inhibition. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of valdecoxib 40 mg/d compared with placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: This 4-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 37 centers across the United States and 5 centers in Canada. Patients aged > or =18 years with chronic low back pain in flare were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive valdecoxib 40-mg/d or placebo tablets, once daily for 4 weeks. Patients rated low back pain intensity on a visual analog scale and completed the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (mBPI-SF) at each visit. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three patients were enrolled. The valdecoxib group comprised 148 patients (81 women, 67 men; mean [SD] age, 48.6 [13.3] years; mean [SD] body weight, 86.6 [20.9] kg), and the placebo group included 145 patients (85 women, 60 men; mean [SD] age, 48.7 [12.6] years; mean [SD] body weight, 85.6 [19.9] kg). Of the enrolled patients, 249 completed the study: 134 patients (91%) who received valdecoxib and 115 patients (79%) who received placebo. No statistically significant differences in patient baseline characteristics were noted between treatment groups, except in response to 1 mBPI-SF question; patients in the valdecoxib group reported significantly greater interference in relations with other people due to pain than did those in the placebo group (P = 0.048). Changes from baseline in low back pain intensity were significantly greater in valdecoxib-treated patients at each assessment (all, P < 0.001 vs placebo). Pain scores on the mBPI-SF indicated significantly greater pain relief with valdecoxib at each assessment (all, P < or = 0.014 vs placebo). Improvements in mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score with valdecoxib were significantly greater than with placebo at each assessment (all, P < or = 0.003). Although the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly higher among patients receiving valdecoxib than those receiving placebo (35.1% vs 24.1%, respectively; P = 0.042), no significant differences were found between groups for the incidence of any individual AE. Most AEs (89% [77/87 total events]) were mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with chronic low back pain, valdecoxib 40 mg/d provided rapid relief (within 1 week) and consistent relief (over 4 weeks). In addition, significant improvement in function and decreased disability were found with valdecoxib compared with placebo.
OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-dummy, double-blind pilot study of acutely exacerbated low back pain was aimed to inform a definitive comparison between Doloteffin, a proprietary extract of Harpagophytum, and rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2). METHODS: Forty-four patients (phyto-anti-inflammatory drug-PAID-group) received a daily dose of Doloteffin containing, inter alia, 60 mg of harpagoside for 6 weeks and 44 (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-NSAID-group) received 12.5 mg/day of rofecoxib. All were allowed rescue medication of up to 400 mg/day of tramadol. Several outcome measures were examined at various intervals to obtain estimates of effect size and variability that might be used to decide the most suitable principal outcome measure and corresponding numbers required for a definitive study. RESULTS: Forty-three PAID and 36 NSAID patients completed the study. Ten PAID and 5 NSAID patients reported no pain without rescue medication for at least 5 days of the 6th week of treatment. Eighteen PAID and 12 NSAID patients had more than a 50% reduction in the week's average of their pain scores between the 1st and 6th weeks. The mean percentage decrease from baseline in the pain component of the Arhus Index was 23 (S.D. 52) in PAID and 26 (S.D. 43) in NSAID. The corresponding measures for the overall Arhus Index were 11 (31) and 16 (24) and, for the Health Assessment Questionnaire, 7 (8) and 6 (7). Tramadol was used by 21 PAID patients and 13 NSAID patients. Fourteen patients in each group experienced 39 adverse effects, of which 28 (13 in PAID) were judged to some degree attributable to the study medications. CONCLUSION: Though no significant intergroup differences were demonstrable, large numbers will be needed to show equivalence.
We evaluated etoricoxib, a novel COX-2-specific inhibitor, in 319 patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to a 60 mg dose (n = 103) or 90 mg dose (n = 107) of etoricoxib, or placebo (n = 109), daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was low back pain intensity scale (Visual Analog Scale of 0- to 100-mm) time-weighted average change from baseline over 4 weeks. Other endpoints included evaluation over 3 months of low back pain intensity scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), low back pain bothersomeness scale, patient- and investigator-global assessments, Patient Health Survey (MOS SF-12), rescue acetaminophen use, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement from baseline versus placebo in pain intensity (4 weeks: 12.9 mm and 10.3 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P <.001 for each; 12 weeks: 10.5 mm and 7.5 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P =.001 and.018, respectively). Etoricoxib at either dose led to significant improvement in other endpoints, including RMDQ scores, bothersomeness scores and global assessments. Etoricoxib given once daily provided significant relief of symptoms, and disability associated with chronic LBP that was observed 1 week after initiating therapy, was maximal at 4 weeks, and was maintained over 3 months.
OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of diclofenac-K 12.5 mg tablets in the treatment of acute low back pain (low back pain). MATERIAL/METHOD: A multiple dose, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial compared diclofenac-K (12.5 mg; n = 124) with ibuprofen (200 mg; n = 122) and placebo (n = 126) in patients with moderate-to-severe acute low back pain. The treatment consisted of an initial dose of 2 tablets followed by 1 or 2 tablets every 4-6 hours as needed (maximum 6 tablets/day) for 7 days. The primary efficacy outcome for the initial dose was TOTPAR-3, the summed total pain relief over the first 3 hours. Secondary initial dose outcomes included TOTPAR-6, summed pain intensity differences SPID-3 and SPID-6, time to rescue medication or remedicate, and the End of First Dose global efficacy assessment. The primary efficacy outcome for the flexible multiple dosing regimen was the End of Study global efficacy assessment. Secondary outcomes for multiple dosing included time to rescue medication over the entire study, the End of Day global efficacy assessments (daily over Days 1-7), pain intensity differences on the VAS measured at Visit 2 and 3, and change in Eifel algofunctional index. Safety/tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events. RESULTS: Diclofenac-K 12.5 mg demonstrated superiority vs placebo on the primary efficacy parameter and almost all secondary initial dose outcomes. With respect to the initial dose, diclofenac-K 12.5 mg was also significantly superior to ibuprofen 200 mg on SPID-3. Ibuprofen 200 mg was superior to placebo only on the End of First Dose global efficacy assessment. The flexible multiple dosing regimens of diclofenac-K and ibuprofen were both significantly superior to placebo on the End of Study global efficacy assessment, time to rescue medication over the entire study period, the End of Day global efficacy assessment on Days 1-2, pain intensity difference on the VAS at Visit 3 and the Eifel algofunctional index at Visit 3 (also at Visit 2 in diclofenac-K 12.5 mg group). Both active treatments were as well tolerated as placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The flexible multiple dosing regimen of diclofenac-K 12.5 mg (initial dose of 2 tablets followed by 1-2 tablets every 4-6 hours, max. 75 mg/day) is an effective and safe treatment of acute low back pain.
The efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac was compared with diclofenac resinate in a double-blind, multicentre randomised study in patients with acute low back pain suffering from degenerative spinal disorders. The study included 227 patients randomised to receive either aceclofenac 2 x 100 mg daily or diclofenac resinate 2 x 75 mg daily for up to 10 days. The primary objective was to demonstrate the clinical non-inferiority of the analgesic efficacy of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate, as assessed by changes from baseline in the visual analogue scale (0-100 mm) pain score, at rest and at visit 3 (final visit on day's 8-10). Secondary objectives included the time to early cure (resolution of pain) and global assessment of tolerability. Mean change in pain score at rest, and as visit 3, compared with baseline, was 61.6 mm (SD 24.5) for the aceclofenac group ( n = 100) and 57.3 mm (SD 22.8) for the diclofenac resinate group ( n = 105) in the per-protocol population. Similar changes were observed in the intention-to-treat population. Between-group differences of 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm for the per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations, respectively, demonstrated clinical non-inferiority of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate. Furthermore, there was evidence for superiority of aceclofenac over diclofenac resinate in terms of statistical significance, as the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was above -10 mm and 0 mm. In the intention-to treat population, a total of six aceclofenac-treated patients discontinued their medication owing to early cure, compared with only one patient receiving diclofenac resinate. Seventeen aceclofenac- (14.9%), and 18 diclofenac resinate-treated patients (15.9%) reported at least one adverse event. However, the total number of adverse events reported was lower in patients receiving aceclofenac (22 versus 31 in the diclofenac resinate group). In conclusion, non-inferiority of the analgesic efficacy of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate was demonstrated in patients with localised, uncomplicated acute lumbosacral pain. For the reduction in pain levels from baseline there was also evidence for superiority of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate in terms of statistical significance, although this difference was not considered clinically relevant. The results also showed a trend towards a better safety and tolerability profile of aceclofenac over diclofenac resinate from a clinical point of view.
STUDY DESIGN: Two replicate, 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trials of rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg versus placebo for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of two doses of rofecoxib compared to placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly prescribed for chronic low back pain, their efficacy is unproven and toxicity can be serious. These studies evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1:1 to rofecoxib 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Primary endpoint: Low Back Pain Intensity. Secondary endpoints: Pain Bothersomeness, Global Assessments of Response to Therapy, Global Assessment of Disease Status, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-12 Health Survey, Use of Rescue Acetaminophen, and Discontinuations Due to Lack of Efficacy. RESULTS: Combining both studies, 690 patients were randomized to placebo (N = 228), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 233), or rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 229). Mean (+/- SD) age was 53.4 (+/- 12.9) years, pain duration 12.1 (+/- 11.8) years, 62.3% female. Both rofecoxib groups improved significantly. Mean differences from placebo in pain intensity were -13.50 mm, -13.81 mm (25, 50 mg doses) respectively (P < 0.001). Both regimens were superior to placebo in eight of nine secondary endpoints. Fifty mg provided no advantage over 25 mg. Both rofecoxib regimens were well tolerated, although 25 mg had a slightly better safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib significantly reduced chronic low back pain in adults and was well tolerated.
