The efficacy and safety of etodolac (Ultradol) and acetaminophen plus codeine [A + C (Tylenol #3)] in controlling post-surgical pain were compared in an open-label, randomized, parallel-group outpatient study. Patients who were voluntarily having a vasectomy performed for sterilization were assigned to receive either etodolac 200 mg (20 patients) or A + C (20 patients). All medication was taken as required for up to 7 days. Efficacy assessments were made at 1, 6 and 24 hours after surgery and included pain measurement (Likert Visual Analogue scale), patient and physician global assessments and time to analgesic relief. Safety assessments were made throughout the study and included vital signs and adverse event monitoring. Results of the study indicated that patients taking etodolac were more likely to say they could return to work 24 hours after their vasectomy (p = 0.04). There were no other statistically significant differences between the two groups of patients. The results from this study indicate that etodolac and A + C are equally efficacious and well-tolerated for the control of post-vasectomy pain and that patients may observe an increased benefit with etodolac by being able to return to work sooner.

The efficacy and safety of etodolac* and diclofenac were compared in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group outpatient study at four sites. One hundred thirty-five patients with active osteoarthritis of the knee were randomly assigned to receive etodolac 600 mg/day (n = 66) or diclofenac 150 mg/day (n = 69) for 6 weeks. The groups were assessed for patient and physician global evaluations, night pain, spontaneous pain intensity. weight-bearing pain parameters, inflammation parameters, morning stiffness, and knee flexion. Both treatment groups achieved a therapeutic response at 2 weeks. At final evaluation, both groups showed significant (p less-than-or-equal-to 0.05) improvement from baseline in all efficacy assessments, with no significant differences between groups for any efficacy parameters. In the patient's global assessment, 50% of the etodolac-treated patients reported improvement in their condition at final evaluation, compared with 40% of the diclofenac-treated patients. Eight etodolac-treated patients and nine diclofenac-treated patients withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions. The results of this study indicate that etodolac (600 mg/day) is as effective and safe as diclofenac (150 mg/day) in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES:

To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DATA SOURCES:

Electronic databases were searched up to November 2003. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2003 were also reviewed.

REVIEW METHODS:

Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a model-based economic evaluation were undertaken. Meta-analyses were undertaken for each COX-2 selective NSAID compared with placebo and non-selective NSAIDs. The model was designed to run in two forms: the 'full Assessment Group Model (AGM)', which includes an initial drug switching cycle, and the 'simpler AGM', where there is no initial cycle and no opportunity for the patient to switch NSAID.

RESULTS:

Compared with non-selective NSAIDs, the COX-2 selective NSAIDs were found to be equally as efficacious as the non-selective NSAIDs (although meloxicam was found to be of inferior or equivalent efficacy) and also to be associated with significantly fewer clinical upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events (although relatively small numbers of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) and myocardial infarction (MI) events were reported across trials). Subgroup analyses of clinical and complicated UGI events and MI events in relation to aspirin use, steroid use, prior GI history and Helicobacter pylori status were based on relatively small numbers and were inconclusive. In the RCTs that included direct COX-2 comparisons, the drugs were equally tolerated and of equal efficacy. Trials were of insufficient size and duration to allow comparison of risk of clinical UGI events, complicated UGI events and MIs. One RCT compared COX-2 (celecoxib) with a non-selective NSAID combined with a gastroprotective agent (diclofenac combined with omeprazole); this included arthritis patients who had recently suffered a GI haemorrhage. Although no significant difference in clinical GI events was reported, the number of events was small and more such studies, where patients genuinely need NSAIDs, are required to confirm these data. A second trial showed that rofecoxib was associated with fewer diarrhoea events than a combination of diclofenac and misoprostol (Arthrotec). Previously published cost-effectiveness analyses indicated a wide of range of possible incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained estimates. Using the simpler AGM, with ibuprofen or diclofenac alone as the comparator, all of the COX-2 products are associated with higher costs (i.e. positive incremental costs) and small increases in effectiveness (i.e. positive incremental effectiveness), measured in terms of QALYs. The magnitude of the incremental costs and the incremental effects, and therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, vary considerably across all COX-2 selective NSAIDs. The base-case incremental cost per QALY results for COX-2 selective NSAIDs compared with diclofenac for the simpler model are: celecoxib (low dose) 68,400 pounds; celecoxib (high dose) 151,000 pounds; etodolac (branded) 42,400 pounds; etodolac (generic) 17,700 pounds; etoricoxib 31,300 pounds; lumiracoxib 70,400 pounds; meloxicam (low dose) 10,300 pounds; meloxicam (high dose) 17,800 pounds; rofecoxib 97,400 pounds; and valdecoxib 35,500 pounds. When the simpler AGM was run using ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) as the comparator, the results change substantially, with the COX-2 selective NSAIDs looking generally unattractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view (COX-2 selective NSAIDs were dominated by ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with PPI in most cases). This applies both to 'standard' and 'high-risk' arthritis patients defined in terms of previous GI ulcers. The full AGM produced results broadly in line with the simpler model.

CONCLUSIONS:

The COX-2 selective NSAIDs examined were found to be similar to non-selective NSAIDs for the symptomatic relief of RA and OA and to provide superior GI tolerability (the majority of evidence is in patients with OA). Although COX-2 selective NSAIDs offer protection against serious GI events, the amount of evidence for this protective effect varied considerably across individual drugs. The volume of trial evidence with regard to cardiovascular safety also varied substantially between COX-2 selective NSAIDs. Increased risk of MI compared to non-selective NSAIDs was observed among those drugs with greater volume of evidence in terms of exposure in patient-years. Economic modelling shows a wide range of possible costs per QALY gained in patients with OA and RA. Costs per QALY also varied if individual drugs were used in 'standard' or 'high'-risk patients, the choice of non-selective NSAID comparator and whether that NSAID was combined with a PPI. With reduced costs of PPIs, future primary research needs to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 selective NSAIDs relative to non-selective NSAIDs with a PPI. Direct comparisons of different COX-2 selective NSAIDs, using equivalent doses, that compare GI and MI risk are needed. Pragmatic studies that include a wider range of people, including the older age groups with a greater burden of arthritis, are also necessary to inform clinical practice.

This 4-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of etodolac and nabumetone in the treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Ninety-one patients received etodolac 400 mg twice daily, 89 received nabumetone 1500 mg once daily, and 90 received placebo. Both active treatments significantly improved the patients' condition relative to baseline (P < or = 0.001) at all evaluations during treatment and relative to placebo (P < or = 0.05) by visit 4. Improvement relative to placebo in investigator's global assessments was earlier in the etodolac group (ie, by visit 3) than in the nabumetone group. At visit 4, improvement in investigator's and patient's global assessment scores, and in the distribution of investigator's assessment scores, was significantly (P < or = 0.05) greater in the etodolac group than in the nabumetone group. Other than hypokalemia, which occurred only in three patients in the nabumetone group (P = 0.035), there were no significant differences among the groups in the frequency of study events or premature discontinuation from the study as a result of study events. Study events considered at least possibly treatment related were reported for 26 patients in the etodolac group (28.6%), 20 in the nabumetone group (22.5%), and 23 in the placebo group (25.6%). The most frequently reported symptoms for all groups were dyspepsia, nausea, and headache. Four patients treated with nabumetone (4.5%) had elevations in aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase during treatment. The results of this study show that etodolac 400 mg twice daily is at least as effective as nabumetone 1500 mg once daily and is equally well tolerated in the treatment of patients with active OA of the knee; etodolac may have an earlier onset of action and/or a relatively greater efficacy in patient and investigator global assessments than nabumetone.

RECORD STATUS:

None

CITATION:

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of cyclo-oxygenase (Cox) II selective inhibitors, celecoxib, rofecoxib, meloxicam and etodolac for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Technology Appraisal Guidance 27. 2001

RECORD STATUS:

None

CITATION:

Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Fry-Smith A, Harris G, Taylor RS. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation Health Technology Assessment 2008; 12(11): 1-196

CRD SUMMARY:

This review evaluated the effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The authors concluded that COX-2 selective NSAIDs were similar to non-selective NSAIDs for the symptomatic relief of these conditions and provided superior GI tolerability. This was a well-conducted review and the authors' conclusions were likely to be reliable.

AIM:

We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of etodolac, in acute migraine attacks in comparison with paracetamol (acetaminophen).

METHODS:

We designed a randomized, double-blind, crossover phase III clinical trial for patients diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year, according to ICHD-II criteria. Two hundred and twenty-nine adult patients having 2 to 8 attacks monthly from 17 centers were included. The patients were instructed to use 3 attack treatment packages consisting of 1,000 mg paracetamol, 400 mg etodolac, and 800 mg etodolac on 3 migraine attacks of moderate-severe intensity each in a 3-month treatment period, interchangeably.

RESULTS:

Any pain medication was used in 1,570 migraine attacks while study treatments were used in 1,047 attacks. The results for 1,000 mg paracetamol, 400 mg etodolac, and 800 mg etodolac were as follows: response of headache at 2 hours 44.9%, 48.3% and 46.1%; pain-free at 2 hours 19.2%, 19.3% and 24.1%; sustained pain-free from 2 to 24 hours 34.3%, 38.3% and 41.1%; relapse rates in 2 to 24 hours 7.3%, 14.3% and 9.7%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the headache response, pain-free, sustained pain-free, and relapse rates. Nausea, vomiting, phonophobia, or photophobia decreased similarly in all groups within 24 hours of treatment administration. Drug-related adverse events were noted in 8 patients with 1,000 mg paracetamol, in 9 patients with 400 mg etodolac and in 9 patients for 800 mg etodolac during the study.

COMMENT:

Our study showed that etodolac is a safe and effective alternative in acute migraine treatment and showed comparable efficacy to paracetamol 1,000 mg. Etodolac may be considered as an alternative option for acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND:

Adequate analgesic medication is mandatory after cardiac operations. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors represent a new therapeutic option, acting primarily on the response to inflammation.

METHODS:

We compared a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (etodolac) with two traditional drugs: a nonselective cyclooxygenase inhibitor (diclofenac) and a weak opioid (tramadol) on postoperative pain and renal function in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass operations. Sixty consecutive patients were randomized into three groups: (1) group A patients who received tramadol; (2) group B patients who received diclofenac; and (3) group C patients who received etodolac. For measurement of analgesic effect, the visual analogue scale was assessed up to postoperative day 4. Creatinine-clearance was determined before and at the end of study medication, and serum creatinine and urea were monitored daily for renal effects. Study medication was given on postoperative days 2 and 3. Side effects and additional pain medication were recorded.

RESULTS:

The visual analogue scale was lower in group C (p < 0.05) from postoperative days 2 to 4 and in group B (p < 0.05) from postoperative days 3 to 4 compared with group A. Amount of additional pain medication and incidence of side effects were significantly less in group C compared with group A. We observed a short-lasting elevation of serum creatinine and urea in groups B and C compared with group A (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

At the doses analyzed, etodolac and diclofenac produced better postoperative pain relief with less side-effects than tramadol. A short-lasting impairment of renal function was found in patients treated with etodolac and diclofenac.

STUDY DESIGN. Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE. To examine the effect of limaprost, an oral prostaglandin (PG) E1 derivative, on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), compared to etodolac, a NSAID. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Limaprost, an oral PGE1 derivative, was developed in Japan to treat numerous ischemic symptoms of thromboangiitis obliterans (TAO) and LSS. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of limaprost in the symptoms in patients with LSS. However, the evidence for effect on patient-reported outcomes, such as patient's HRQOL or satisfaction, is limited. METHODS. This study was conducted at 4 study sites in Japan. Briefly, inclusion criteria were: age between 50 and 85 years; presence of both neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) and cauda equina symptoms (at least presence of bilateral numbness in the lower limbs); and MRI-confirmed central stenosis with acquired degenerative LSS. Limaprost (15 μg/d) or etodolac (400 mg/d) was administered for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was Short Form (SF)-36, and the secondary outcomes were the verbal rating scale of low back pain and leg numbness, walking distance, subjective improvement, and satisfaction. RESULTS. A total of 79 participants were randomized (limaprost:etodolac = 39:40). Thirteen participants withdrew from the study (limaprost:etodolac = 5:8) and 66 completed the study (limaprost:etodolac = 34:32). Comparisons showed that limaprost resulted in significantly greater improvements in the SF-36 subscales of physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, vitality, and mental health. Limaprost was also significantly better than etodolac for leg numbness, NIC distance, and subjective improvement and satisfaction. In the subgroup analysis stratified by symptom severity, limaprost seemed more effective for milder symptoms. No serious adverse effects were reported in either treatment group. CONCLUSION. In this study, limaprost was found to be efficacious on most outcome measures, such as HRQOL, symptoms and subjective satisfaction, in LSS patents with cauda equina symptoms. © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.