Leukotriene antagonists block the proinflammatory actions of leukotrienes (LT) and have been introduced as new treatments for asthma. Conventional therapy with glucocorticosteroids does not inhibit ...the biosynthesis of leukotrienes. We therefore tested whether addition of the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast was of therapeutic benefit in a group of aspirin-intolerant patients with asthma of whom 90% already were treated with moderate to high doses of glucocorticosteroids. Under double-blind conditions, 80 aspirin-intolerant patients with asthma were randomized to receive 4 wk oral treatment of either 10 mg of montelukast or placebo once daily at bedtime. Pulmonary function was measured as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) once a week in the clinic and daily as morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). Asthma symptoms and use of rescue bronchodilator were also recorded daily. Asthma specific quality of life (QoL) was assessed before and after the treatments. The group receiving montelukast showed a remarkable improvement of their asthma, whereas the group given placebo showed no change. Thus, from equal baseline values, the mean difference between the groups over the 4-wk treatment period was 10.2% for FEV(1) and 28.0 L for morning PEFR (p for both < 0.001). The improved pulmonary function in the group receiving montelukast occurred at the same time as 27% less bronchodilator was used (p < 0.05), and it was associated with fewer asthma symptoms than in the group given placebo, including 1.3 nights more of sleep per week and 54% fewer asthma exacerbations (p < 0.05). There was also an improvement in asthma-specific QoL (p < 0.05). The therapeutic response to montelukast was consistent across patients with different baseline characteristics and did not correlate with baseline urinary LTE(4). Addition of a leukotriene receptor antagonist such as montelukast improves asthma in aspirin-intolerant patients over and above what can be achieved by glucocorticosteroids.
Background: Nasal challenge studies have suggested histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes are important proinflammatory mediators in allergic rhinitis. This study was designed to determine the efficacy ...of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, administered alone or concomitantly with loratadine, an H1-receptor antagonist, in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of concomitant use of montelukast and loratadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Methods: In this multicenter (N = 12) double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled 2-week trial, 460 men and women, aged 15 to 75 years, with spring seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly allocated to receive 1 of the following 5 treatments: montelukast 10 or 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg, montelukast 10 mg with loratadine 10 mg, or placebo, once daily in the evening. The primary end point was daytime nasal symptoms score (average of congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, and sneezing). Other end points were eye symptoms, nighttime symptoms, individual daytime nasal symptoms, global evaluations (patient’s and physician’s), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life scores. Results: Concomitant montelukast with loratadine improved the primary end point significantly (P < .001) compared with placebo and each agent alone. Compared with placebo, montelukast with loratadine also significantly improved eye symptoms, nighttime symptoms, individual daytime nasal symptoms, global evaluations, and quality of life. Montelukast alone and loratadine alone caused modest improvements in rhinitis end points. All treatments were similarly well tolerated. Conclusions: Concomitant montelukast with loratadine provided effective treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis and associated eye symptoms with a safety profile comparable with placebo. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;105:917-22.)
Pain is a common complaint, often occurring in conjunction with inflammation. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most commonly used analgesic agents in ambulatory patients. In ...recent studies, the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor rofecoxib demonstrated analgesic effects similar to those of NSAIDs in the treatment of acute pain and primary dysmenorrhea. The present randomized, single-dose, double-blind, doubledummy, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group study was undertaken to compare the analgesic efficacy of the COX-2 inhibitors rofecoxib 50 mg and celecoxib 200 mg with that of ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo in patients with postoperative dental pain. Two hundred and seventy-two patients experiencing pain after the removal of ≥ 2 third molars were randomized according to pain severity (moderate vs severe) to receive a single dose of placebo (n = 45), rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 90), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 91), or ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 46). Using a patient diary, patients recorded pain intensity, pain relief, and global evaluations throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The overall analgesic effect, onset of action, peak effect, and duration of effect were evaluated, with the primary end point being total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8). The safety profile was assessed on the basis of physical findings, laboratory results, and spontaneous reports of adverse experiences. The results showed that compared with celecoxib, rofecoxib had superior analgesic effects on all measures of analgesic efficacy, including overall analgesic effect (TOPAR8, 18.3 vs 12.5;
P < 0.001), time to onset of effect (30 vs 60 minutes;
P = 0.003), peak pain relief (score, 2.8 vs 2.3;
P < 0.05), and duration of effect (> 24 vs 5.1 hours;
P < 0.001). In addition, rofecoxib's analgesic efficacy was similar to that of ibuprofen (TOPAR8, 18.3 vs 17.0;
P = 0.460), but the duration was longer (
P < 0.05); with ibuprofen, the time to onset was 24 minutes, peak pain relief score was 2.9, and duration of analgesic effect was 8.9 hours. The safety profile was similar across all treatment groups. Thus rofecoxib provided analgesic efficacy superior to that of celecoxib and comparable to that of ibuprofen in the treatment of patients with acute postoperative dental pain.
Background:
Rofecoxib and celecoxib, selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, have analgesic efficacy similar to that of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Objective:
This study was ...designed to confirm earlier findings that the overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was superior to that of celecoxib 200 mg and to extend the comparison to include celecoxib 400 mg.
Methods:
In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group, single-dose study, patients who experienced moderate or severe pain after surgical extraction of at least 2 third molars received a single oral dose of either rofecoxib 50 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, celecoxib 200 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, or placebo. Patients recorded scores of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessment at prespecified time intervals throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The end points were total pain relief (TOPAR) score over 8 hours (TOPAR8; primary end point), TOPAR score over 12 hours (TOPAR12), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 8 and 12 hours (SPID8 and SPID12), patient's global assessment of study drug at 8 hours, time to confirmed perceptible pain relief (ie, time to onset of analgesic effect), peak pain intensity difference (PID), peak pain relief, time to first dose of rescue medication (ie, duration of analgesic effect), and percentage of patients using rescue medication.
Results:
A total of 482 patients (358 females, 124 males; mean age, 22.1 years) were enrolled. Rofecoxib 50 mg (
n = 151 patients) demonstrated significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy compared with celecoxib 400 mg (
n = 151), as measured by TOPAR8 (least squares mean SE 17.2 0.8 vs 15.0 0.8;
P < 0.05) and TOPAR12 (25.3 1.2 vs 21.0 1.2;
P < 0.05), as well as a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect (
P < 0.05). Time to onset of analgesic effect and peak analgesic effect were similar for rofecoxib 50 mg and celecoxib 400 mg. Rofecoxib also showed significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy than did celecoxib 200 mg (
n = 90) including greater TOPAR8 scores (17.2 0.8 vs 11.5 1.1;
P < 0.001), faster onset of analgesic effect (
P < 0.001), greater peak analgesic effect (
P < 0.001 for peak pain relief and peak PID), and longer duration of analgesic effect (
P < 0.001). The overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of ibuprofen 400 mg (
n = 45), except that the duration of analgesic effect of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly longer (
P < 0.001). All active treatments produced significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy compared with that of placebo (
P < 0.001 for all scores TOPAR8, TOPAR12, SPID8, SPID12, and patient's global assessment for all study drugs). The adverse-events (AE) profile was generally similar in all treatment groups. The 3 most common AEs were nausea, postextraction alveolitis, and vomiting.
Conclusions:
In this study, rofecoxib 50 mg provided generally superior overall analgesic efficacy compared with that of celecoxib 400 and 200 mg, including a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect. The overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was generally similar to that of ibuprofen 400 mg, except for a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect.
Abstract Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, in comparison with indometacin in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis. Design: ...Randomised, double blind, active comparator controlled trial. Setting: 43 outpatient study centres in 11 countries. Participants: 142 men and eight women (75 patients per treatment group) aged 18 years or over presenting with clinically diagnosed acute gout within 48 hours of onset. Interventions: Etoricoxib 120 mg administered orally once daily versus indometacin 50 mg administered orally three times daily, both for 8 days Main outcome measures: Patients' assessment of pain in the study joint over days 2 to 5 (primary end point); investigators' and patients' global assessments of response to treatment and tenderness of the study joint (key secondary end points). Results: Etoricoxib showed efficacy comparable to indometacin. Patients' assessment of pain in the study joint (0-4 point Likert scale, “no pain” to “extreme pain”) over days 2 to 5 showed a least squares mean change from baseline of −1.72 (95% confidence interval −1.90 to −1.55) for etoricoxib and −1.83 (−2.01 to −1.65) for indometacin. The difference between treatment groups met prespecified comparability criteria. All other efficacy end points, including those reflecting reduction in inflammation and analgesia, provided corroborative evidence of comparable efficacy. Significant pain relief was evident at the first measurement, 4 hours after the first dose of treatment. Prespecified safety analyses revealed that drug related adverse experiences occurred significantly less frequently with etoricoxib (22.7%) than with indometacin (46.7%) (P=0.003), although overall adverse experience rates were similar between the two treatment groups. Conclusion: Etoricoxib 120 mg once daily provides rapid and effective treatment for acute gouty arthritis comparable to indometacin 50 mg three times daily. Etoricoxib was generally safe and well tolerated in this study.
OBJECTIVE:To compare the overall analgesic effect, including time to onset, peak and duration of effect for etoricoxib 120 mg, a new COX-2 selective inhibitor, in patients with acute pain to that of ...placebo. Naproxen sodium 550 mg and acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg were the active comparators.
METHODS:A total of 201 patients with moderate to severe pain following surgical extraction of ≥2 third molars, of which at least the mandibular tooth was impacted, were randomly allocated to receive single oral doses of placebo (n = 50), etoricoxib 120 mg (n = 50), naproxen sodium 550 mg (n = 51), or acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg (n = 50). The endpoints included total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8, primary end point), sum of pain intensity difference over 8 hours, patient’s global evaluation, onset, peak, and duration of analgesia.
RESULTS:Etoricoxib 120 mg had a significantly greater least squares (LS) mean TOPAR8 score than placebo (20.9 vs 5.4; P < 0.001) and acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg (20.9 vs 11.5; P < 0.001), and a similar LS mean TOPAR8 score to naproxen sodium 550 mg (20.9 vs 21.3). All three active treatments had rapid onset of analgesia, median time ~30 minutes. The duration of analgesic effect, defined as median time to rescue medication use, was >24 hours for etoricoxib, 20.8 hours for naproxen sodium, 3.6 hours for acetaminophen/codeine, and 1.6 hours for placebo.
DISCUSSION:Etoricoxib is a new COX-2 selective inhibitor under development for treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain. In this study, etoricoxib 120 mg provided rapid and long-lasting pain relief to patients with moderate-to-severe postdental surgery pain. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated.
In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study we assessed the analgesic effect of etoricoxib (a new cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) in patients having had knee or hip ...replacement surgery. A total of 228 patients with moderate or severe pain were randomly allocated within 72 h after surgery to receive etoricoxib 120 mg, controlled-release naproxen sodium 1100 mg, or placebo (1:1:1) on day 1 followed by etoricoxib and placebo (1:2) on days 2 to 7. Patients reported pain scores, rescue (opioid-combination) medication use, and the response to study drug. On day 1, etoricoxib provided an analgesic effect superior to placebo and similar to controlled-release naproxen sodium as demonstrated by the total pain relief score over 8 h, the primary end-point; least-squares mean scores were 11.0, 11.5, and 5.6, respectively (P < 0.001 versus placebo). Similarly, a larger percentage of patients receiving etoricoxib and naproxen sodium than those receiving placebo reported good to excellent responses to study drug: 53%, 60%, and 26% respectively. On days 2-7, etoricoxib demonstrated a significant reduction of rescue medication use, 35% (P < 0.001 versus placebo). The clinical relevance of the decrease was confirmed by Patient's Global Evaluation (P < 0.05 versus placebo). Patients receiving etoricoxib also experienced significantly less "worst" and "average" pain than did those on placebo. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated in this study; the incidence of adverse experiences was infrequent and similar across treatment groups. In summary, etoricoxib provided analgesia that was similar to controlled-release naproxen sodium on day 1 and superior to placebo with reduced supplemental opioid use over 7 days.
In a postsurgery setting (knee and hip replacements), etoricoxib 120 mg provided analgesia superior to placebo and similar to controlled-release naproxen sodium 1100 mg. Patients receiving etoricoxib suffered less pain and took less opioid rescue medication compared with patients on placebo.
Summary
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of treatment with etoricoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip.
Methods: In the 12-week ...placebo- and active comparator-controlled period of a randomized, double-blind study, eligible patients were treated with etoricoxib 60 mg once daily (n = 224), naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n = 221), or placebo (n = 56). Western Ontario McMaster's Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and patient's global assessment of disease status were primary end points. Key secondary and other end points were patient's and investigator's global assessment of response to therapy, WOMAC stiffness subscale, investigator's global assessment of disease status, rescue paracetamol use, proportion of patients discontinuing due to lack of efficacy, and study joint tenderness.
Results: Etoricoxib 60 mg demonstrated efficacy significantly superior to placebo (p ≤ 0.005) and comparable to naproxen 500mg twice daily as assessed by the primary efficacy end points. Secondary and other end points confirmed these results. Treatment effects were evident by day 2, maximal by week 2, and sustained over the entire 12 weeks. Etoricoxib was well tolerated for 12 weeks.
Conclusions: Etoricoxib showed rapid and durable treatment effects in patients with OA of the knee or hip. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated.
Background: Patients experiencing acute pain after surgery, including dental surgery, often require analgesia. Ideally, the chosen analgesic should have a rapid onset and sustained effect. Etoricoxib ...is a new cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor that has demonstrated analgesic efficacy in the treatment of acute pain with a rapid onset and long-lasting pain relief.
Objective: The goal of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of single oral doses of etoricoxib 60, 120, 180, and 240 mg compared with placebo in the treatment of pain after dental surgery. Ibuprofen was used as an active control.
Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study performed at a single center. It consisted of 3 visits (prestudy, treatment, and poststudy). Eligible patients were aged ≥16 years with moderate or severe pain after surgical extraction of ≥2 third molars, of which ≥1 was an impacted mandibular molar. Patients were assessed over 24 hours and reported pain intensity and pain relied at 14 predefined time points. Plasma samples for a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis were collected from a subset of patients at baseline and the 14 predefined time points. The end points included total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8, the primary end point), sum of pain intensity difference over 8 hours, patient's global evaluation of treatment, median time to onset of pain relief (2-stopwatch method), peak pain relief, and duration of analgesic effect (median time to use of rescue medication). Adverse events were collected up to 14 days postdose.
Results: Three hundred ninety-eight (63.1% women, 36.9% men; mean age, 21.1 years; 72.1% white, 27.9% other; mean number of third molars removed, 3.5; 65.2% experiencing moderate pain) were randomly allocated to receive etoricoxib 60 mg (n = 75), etoricoxib 120 mg (n = 76), etoricoxib 180 mg (n = 74), etoricoxib 240 mg (n = 76), ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 48), and placebo (n = 49). All active treatments had significantly greater overall analgesic effect (TOPAR8) compared with placebo (
P ≤ 0.001). Patients who received etoricoxib 120 and 180 mg had significantly higher TOPAR8 scores than those who received etoricoxib 60 mg (
P ≤ 0.001) and ibuprofen (
P < 0.05 etoricoxib 120 mg;
P ≤ 0.001 etoricoxib 180 mg). Least-squares mean TOPAR8 scores for etoricoxib 60, 120, 180, and 240 mg, ibuprofen, and placebo were 16.0, 22.0, 23.5, 20.7, 18.6, and 5.2, respectively. The median time to onset of analgesia was 24 minutes for etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg, and 30 minutes for etoricoxib 60 mg and ibuprofen. There were no significant differences in the onset of analgesia between etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg and ibuprofen. The duration of analgesic effect was >24 hours for etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg, and 12.1 hours for etoricoxib 60 mg. The duration of effect was significantly longer with all 4 etoricoxib doses compared with ibuprofen (10.1 hours;
P < 0.05 etoricoxib 60 mg;
P ≤ 0.001 etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg) and compared with placebo (2.1 hours;
P ≤ 0.001). In the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis (n ≈ 120), there was a linear relationship between plasma etoricoxib concentrations and pain relief scores up to the maximum observed concentration, followed by a decline in plasma concentrations with persistent analgesia. The most common adverse events were postextraction alveolitis and nausea.
Conclusions: In this dose-ranging study, etoricoxib 120 mg was determined to be the minimum dose that had maximal efficacy in patients with moderate to severe acute pain associated with dental surgery. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were generally well tolerated.
PDF
