0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

A Randomized Trial of the Efficacy and Tolerability of the COX-2 Inhibitor Rofecoxib vs Ibuprofen in Patients With Osteoarthritis FREE

Ric Day, MD; Briggs Morrison, MD; Armando Luza, MD; Oswaldo Castaneda, MD; Alberto Strusberg, MD; Menachem Nahir, MD; Knut Bjorn Helgetveit, MD; Barbara Kress, RN; Brian Daniels, MD; James Bolognese; Dave Krupa; Beth Seidenberg, MD; Elliot Ehrich, MD; for the Rofecoxib/Ibuprofen Comparator Study Group
[+] Author Affiliations

From St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, Australia (Dr Day); Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, NJ (Drs Morrison, Daniels, Seidenberg, and Ehrich, Ms Kress, and Mssrs Bolognese and Krupa); Clinica San Pablo, Surca Lima, Peru (Dr Luza); Clinica Anglo-Americana, Lima, Peru (Dr Castaneda); Department of Rheumatology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel (Dr Nahir); and Martina Hansens Hospital, Baerum, Norway (Dr Helgetveit). Dr Strusberg is in private practice in Cordoba, Argentina.


Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(12):1781-1787. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.12.1781.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit both cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). It is not known whether a specific inhibitor of COX-2 will provide efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) comparable with NSAIDs. Therefore, we compared the efficacy and safety of the rofecoxib, which specifically inhibits COX-2, with those of the NSAID ibuprofen in patients with OA.

Objective  To compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib (12.5 and 25 mg once daily) with ibuprofen (800 mg 3 times daily).

Methods  A randomized, double-blind trial of 809 adults with OA was conducted. Patients with OA in whom the knee or hip was the primary source of pain were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment groups on demonstration of disease activity: placebo; rofecoxib, 12.5 or 25 mg once daily; or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily. Clinical efficacy and safety were monitored during a 6-week treatment period.

Results  Both doses of rofecoxib demonstrated efficacy clinically comparable with ibuprofen as assessed by 3 primary end points (pain walking on a flat surface [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index], patient global assessment of response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status) according to predefined comparability criteria. Both rofecoxib doses and the ibuprofen dose provided significantly (P<.001) greater efficacy than placebo on all primary end points. Results from secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end points. All treatments were well tolerated; the overall incidence rates of clinical adverse experiences were not significantly different (P>.05) among the treatment groups.

Conclusion  Rofecoxib was well tolerated and provided clinical efficacy comparable with a high dose of the NSAID ibuprofen.

Figures in this Article

NONSTEROIDAL anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat the pain and inflammation caused by a variety of clinical disorders, including osteoarthritis (OA). The clinical effects of these drugs result primarily from the inhibition of the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX), the first step in the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins.1

Two COX isoforms (COX-1 and COX-2) have been identified and characterized.25 Cyclooxygenase-1 is constitutively active throughout the body6,7 and is only slightly upregulated in some cells in response to hormones or growth factors.8,9 In contrast, under basal conditions, COX-2 expression is restricted to the brain,10,11 reproductive tract,12 kidney,13 and pancreatic islet cells,14 but it is markedly upregulated in response to inflammation and other stressors.1520 These distinct expression patterns have led to the proposal that prostaglandins produced by COX-1 are largely responsible for physiologic functions,21 while COX-2–derived prostaglandins mediate pathophysiologic and inflammatory processes.21

In vitro and ex vivo assays have shown that NSAIDs nonspecifically inhibit both the COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms.2125 As prostaglandins are involved in the maintenance of gastrointestinal (GI) tract mucosal integrity, the well-recognized toxic effects of NSAIDs on the GI tract26 have been proposed to result largely from inhibition of COX-1 activity.21,27 The therapeutic effects of NSAIDs may be attributable to COX-2 inhibition.21,28,29 Therefore, agents that specifically inhibit COX-2 are being evaluated to determine whether they have efficacy equal to NSAIDs with an improved GI tract safety profile.

Rofecoxib, 4-[4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl]-3-phenyl-2(5H)-furanone, inhibits human COX-2 with a greater than 800-fold degree of selectivity relative to COX-1 in an in vitro assay with Chinese hamster ovary cell lines expressing COX-1 or COX-2.30 Using ex vivo human whole blood assays, rofecoxib showed dose-related inhibition of COX-2 activity but no significant inhibition of COX-1 activity with single oral doses ranging from 5 to 1000 mg.30 Rofecoxib is, therefore, a specific inhibitor of the COX-2 isoform in humans.

Clinical evidence to support the hypothesis that rofecoxib has an improved GI tract safety profile compared with NSAIDs would consist of data demonstrating that rofecoxib provides improved GI tract safety compared with an NSAID at doses that provide comparable clinical efficacy. In 2 large multicenter endoscopy studies31,32 performed in patients with OA, rofecoxib, 25 mg taken once daily, caused fewer endoscopically detected gastroduodenal ulcers than ibuprofen, 2400 mg (800 mg 3 times daily). Therefore, we undertook a prospective randomized study with the hypothesis that rofecoxib, 25 mg, would provide comparable clinical efficacy with ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily. The main outcome measures were patient and physician assessments of efficacy in the treatment of OA.

The primary objective of this randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical efficacy of rofecoxib (12.5 and 25 mg once daily) with ibuprofen (800 mg 3 times daily). All subjects gave written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards or ethical review committees for all 49 investigative sites in 26 countries.

STUDY DESIGN

On confirmation of eligibility, patients were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment groups by a computer-generated allocation schedule: placebo, rofecoxib, 12.5 or 25 mg once daily, or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of rofecoxib with that of ibuprofen; a smaller placebo group was included to confirm that rofecoxib and ibuprofen had efficacy greater than that of the placebo. Thus, the allocation was 1:4:4:4 for placebo, both doses of rofecoxib, and ibuprofen. The masked allocation schedule was generated by an individual not otherwise involved with the study and kept concealed from all study participants. The allocation schedule was unblinded once all data had been entered, reviewed, and certified. Medication was provided in blister packages; study blinding was maintained by using a matching placebo for each study medication. Patients took 3 tablets each morning and 1 tablet at both midday and evening. Patients returned approximately every 2 weeks for 3 visits to assess both efficacy and safety. Patients were provided open-label acetaminophen for osteoarthritic pain not adequately controlled by the study medication; the maximum daily dose of acetaminophen allowed was 2600 mg, and the amount used was recorded. Patients returned 7 to 10 days after their last dose of study medication for posttherapy safety assessment.

ENTRY CRITERIA

The study included 2 groups of patients with OA. NSAID users: These patients discontinued their prior NSAID therapy on confirmation of eligibility. Following a washout period (longer than 5 plasma half-lives of prior NSAID use), patients' pain walking on a flat surface was assessed using question 1 of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC 3.0),33 a patient-reported 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were randomized to the study if they reported a minimum of 40 mm and an increase of 15 mm on the VAS compared with the value at the screening visit (ie, before discontinuation of NSAIDs), and if the investigator's global assessment of disease status worsened by at least 1 point on a 0-to-4 Likert scale compared with the screening visit.

Acetaminophen users: Patients who used acetaminophen instead of NSAIDs for the treatment of OA were randomized if at both the screening and randomization visits they met all 3 of the following criteria: (1) they reported a minimum of 40 mm on the pain VAS (question 1 of the WOMAC), (2) they reported a minimum of 40 mm on a separate VAS evaluating the patient's global assessment of disease status, and (3) the investigator rated the global assessment of disease status as fair, poor, or very poor.

The diagnosis of OA was based upon clinical and radiographic evidence of OA (joint space narrowing and osteophytes for knee and joint space narrowing for hip). Other entry criteria included age 40 years or older, American Rheumatism Association (ARA; Steinbrocker system) functional class I, II, or III34; symptomatic for at least 6 months; the knee or hip the primary source of pain or disability; and, for women, postmenopausal or demonstrably nongravid. Patients were excluded if they had significant renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance ≤0.50 mL/s [≤30 mL/min] or serum creatinine level >177 µmol/L [>2.0 mg/dL]), clinically significant abnormal results of physical examination or laboratory screening, a positive fecal occult blood test result, malabsorption, class III/IV angina or congestive heart failure, uncontrolled hypertension, stroke or transient ischemic attack within 2 years, active hepatic disease, a history of recent neoplastic disease, or an allergy to acetaminophen or NSAIDs. Patients were excluded if they required aspirin at any dose, corticosteroids, warfarin sodium, or ticlopidine hydrochloride.

EFFICACY ASSESSMENTS

To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the effect of rofecoxib on the multiple clinical manifestations of OA, a variety of efficacy end points were included in the study that were derived from the assessments made by both the patient and the investigator.

At each visit, the patient completed the WOMAC33 and a global assessment of overall disease status (100-mm VAS, ranging from "very well" to "very poor"). At treatment visits, the patient also rated the overall response of his or her OA to study medication on a 0-to-4 Likert scale ("none" to "excellent"). The physician rated (1) overall assessments of disease status (0-to-4 Likert scale of "very poor" to "very well"), (2) overall response of the patient's OA to study medication, and (3) study joint tenderness. Examination of study knee or hip joint for tenderness was performed with the patient in the supine position. Tenderness was defined as pain in response to passive motion or pressure; the hip was internally and externally rotated, and the knee was moved through the full available range to detect any end range pain and palpated around the medial and lateral joint lines while the knee was in the neutral position. Pain on palpation (knee only) or during passive range of motion (hip and knee) was graded according to the following scale: 0, no pain; 1, patient states there is pain; 2, patient states there is pain and winces; and 3, patient states there is pain, winces, and withdraws.

Other measurements of efficacy included amount of rescue acetaminophen consumed and discontinuation from the study because of lack of efficacy of the study medication. The primary end points were pain walking on a flat surface, patient response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status. Secondary end points included the WOMAC subscales (pain, stiffness, and disability), patient global assessment of disease status, investigator assessment of response to therapy, patients discontinued from the study because of lack of efficacy, acetaminophen use, and study joint tenderness.

TOLERABILITY ASSESSMENTS

Spontaneously reported adverse experiences and vital signs were monitored at every visit. Laboratory investigations, including hematology (complete blood cell count with differential), chemistry (electrolyte, urea nitrogen, creatinine, total protein, albumin, calcium, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin levels), and urinalysis (protein, glucose, pH, red blood cells, and white blood cells, with microscopic examination if there were any abnormal results) were performed at screening, randomization, 4 and 6 weeks of therapy, and the posttherapy visit. For all adverse experiences, the investigator recorded the intensity, the relation to test drug ("definitely not" and "probably not" related were scored as not drug-related adverse experiences; "possibly," "probably," and "definitely" related were scored as drug-related adverse experiences), the outcome, and any action taken.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary measure for each efficacy end point (except discontinuation because of lack of efficacy) was the mean response (change from baseline) over all observation times in the 6-week treatment period. All data collected from discontinuation and unscheduled visits were included in this analysis; no missing values were imputed. For each end point, a patient had to have a baseline measurement and at least 1 measurement during the 6-week treatment period for the mean change from baseline to be computed. Only 14 of the 809 randomized patients were excluded from the analysis for one or more of the primary end points because of missing baseline or on-treatment data. Eighty-five percent of the randomized patients had a measurement recorded for all 3 primary end points at all of the planned observation times.

For each end point, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to model patient mean change from baseline as a function of the categorical predictors treatment, study center, and history of ulcer or upper GI tract bleeding, and a continuous covariate, the baseline measurement. Mean patient change from baseline and SEs resulting from the ANCOVA were used to compute 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the between-treatment difference in mean response, tests to compare mean response with active treatments against the placebo, and posterior probabilities (based on Bayesian analyses with noninformative prior distributions35) that the true mean differences in response to the active treatments were within the predefined clinical comparability bounds. All statistical tests for difference were 2-tailed with P=.05; P≤.05 was considered statistically significant.

The primary hypothesis of this study was that rofecoxib would provide clinical efficacy comparable with ibuprofen as assessed by 3 primary end points: pain walking on a flat surface, patient response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status. The following conditions had to be satisfied to conclude that the treatments were clinically comparable: in any 2 of the 3 primary end points, the 95% CIs of mean differences between treatment groups had to be within predefined comparability bounds (±10 mm on a 100-mm VAS and ±0.5 on a Likert scale), and all of the 3 posterior probabilities were required to be 0.950 or lower. These clinical comparability bounds are more conservative than those proposed by a consensus panel of rheumatologists36 and were derived from results of previous OA trials with rofecoxib.

Separate analyses were performed to evaluate effects on treatment differences of subgroup factors, including race, age, sex, study joint (knee vs hip), and prior OA medication use (NSAID vs acetaminophen). These were assessed individually by adding each subgroup factor and its interaction with treatment to the ANCOVA model for each of the 3 primary end points.

Safety was assessed by comparing incidence rates of adverse experiences and exceeding predefined limits of change in laboratory and vital sign variables between the treatment groups. These between-group comparisons were calculated using the Fisher exact test; a step-down approach (25 mg first, and if significant, followed by 12.5 mg) was used for the comparisons of rofecoxib doses vs placebo.

This study had greater than 99% power to demonstrate comparable efficacy (according to the criteria cited) between rofecoxib and ibuprofen if their true difference is 0. Power calculations were based on observed treatment effects in other placebo-controlled studies with rofecoxib. Since this study was designed using variability data from a pilot study (data on file, Merck Research Laboratories), provision was made for larger variability. If the underlying SDs were 25% larger than those observed in the pilot study, the power was approximately 94%.

Between April 30 and November 7, 1997, 1023 patients with OA were screened and 809 were enrolled in the study (Figure 1). Patients randomly assigned to the 4 treatment groups had similar sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including baseline values for efficacy end points (Table 1, Figure 1, and Figure 2; additional data not shown).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Randomized trial profile.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Characteristics by Treatment Assignment*
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Treatment effects over time for the 3 primary clinical efficacy end points. S indicates screening visit; R, randomization visit; and WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Error bars indicate 84% confidence intervals. All active treatments were superior to placebo (P<.001).

Graphic Jump Location

Of the 809 patients, 709 (88%) completed the study; the overall discontinuation rate was comparable among treatment groups (Figure 3; additional data not shown). There was a significantly higher discontinuation rate because of clinical adverse experiences in the ibuprofen group compared with the placebo group (P<.05), whereas both rofecoxib groups were not significantly different from placebo. There were significantly fewer discontinuations because of lack of efficacy (P≤.009) in the active therapy groups compared with the placebo group (Figure 3). The number of patients who withdrew for other reasons was similar between all groups (P>.05).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Patients discontinued from the study because of lack of efficacy or adverse experience. The rate of discontinuation for lack of efficacy was greater in the placebo group compared with each of the treatment groups (P<.05). The rate of discontinuation for an adverse event was greater only in the ibuprofen group compared with the placebo group (P<.05).

Graphic Jump Location
EFFICACY

Figure 2 presents the mean change from baseline during the 6-week treatment period for the 3 primary end points (pain walking on a flat surface, patient response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status) and the secondary end point of the physical function subscale of the WOMAC; data for all primary and secondary end points are shown in Table 2. For all 4 end points, the treatment effect was similar among all active groups and was superior to the placebo group. Maximum treatment effects were seen (Figure 2) by the first evaluation (2 weeks) and were sustained throughout the 6-week treatment period. The treatment effect of rofecoxib was consistently seen for all primary and secondary end points (Figure 2 and Table 2); for each end point the effect was similar among all active groups, and all active groups were superior to the placebo group.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Efficacy Results by End Point According to Treatment Assignment*

The clinical efficacy of both rofecoxib doses was comparable with that of ibuprofen during 6 weeks of treatment using the prespecified comparability criteria (see the "Methods" section). For all 3 primary end points, the 95% CIs for the difference of mean response between each of the treatment pairs (rofecoxib, 25 mg, and ibuprofen; rofecoxib, 12.5 mg, and ibuprofen; and rofecoxib, 25-12.5 mg, and ibuprofen) were within the predefined comparability bounds, and the posterior probability that the true mean difference was within the predefined comparability bounds was greater than 0.950. The effect of rofecoxib, 25 mg, was significantly superior to that of ibuprofen (P<.05) for 2 of the 3 primary end points (patient response to therapy [P=.005] and investigator global assessment of disease status [P=.005]).

Analyses were performed to determine if the treatment effects observed were consistent across various subgroups of patients using treatment-by-subgroup analyses for the 3 primary end points. Treatment effects were consistently observed whether the patients had knee vs hip as the primary study joint and whether they were an acetaminophen user vs an NSAID user at study entry. No statistically significant interactions were observed between treatment and study center, sex, race, age, or ARA functional class at study entry.

TOLERABILITY

The incidence of any clinical adverse event was not significantly different among the treatment groups (41.9% in the placebo group vs 50.8% [rofecoxib, 12.5 mg], 53.3% [rofecoxib, 25 mg], and 51.8% [ibuprofen] in the active groups). Drug-related clinical adverse events were more common in all active therapy groups compared with placebo (10.8% vs 27.5%, 31.0%, and 30.5%, respectively; P=.003). Clinical adverse events that led to discontinuation from the study were most common in the ibuprofen group (1.4% vs 4.1%, 3.7%, and 8.4%, respectively; P=.03 vs placebo for ibuprofen only); this was mostly accounted for by adverse experiences related to the GI tract. Two symptomatic gastric ulcers were observed in the study; both were in the ibuprofen treatment group. The most common clinical adverse experiences were epigastric discomfort (0% vs 5.7%, 5.8%, and 8.0%, respectively), diarrhea (4.1% vs 4.5%, 5.0%, and 5.2%, respectively), and nausea (1.4% vs 2.9%, 6.6%, and 3.6%, respectively). The incidence of any laboratory adverse event was not significantly different among the treatment groups (4.1% in the placebo group vs 10.7% [rofecoxib, 12.5 mg], 7.6% [rofecoxib, 25 mg], and 13.4% [ibuprofen] in the active groups). The mean changes in body weight and blood pressure were similar in all treatment groups. Adverse experiences of edema or hypertension were reported at similar rates in all treatment groups.

The discovery of 2 isoforms of COX, the target enzyme inhibited by NSAIDs, has led to a number of questions concerning the role of inhibiting COX-1 vs COX-2 in terms of the efficacy and safety of this widely prescribed class of drugs. Previous work has demonstrated that specific inhibitors of COX-2 are efficacious in the treatment of OA,37 but left open the question of how that efficacy compares with NSAIDs, which inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2. In this report, we demonstrated that the efficacy of rofecoxib, which specifically inhibits COX-2, was comparable with that of a high dose of the NSAID ibuprofen. Importantly, we characterized the effect of rofecoxib on a variety of the clinical manifestations of OA, and in all cases, we found the efficacy of rofecoxib to be comparable with ibuprofen. These results were obtained in a large, diverse population of patients from 26 different countries, and the results were consistent across race, age, sex, study joint, and prior OA medication use (NSAID vs acetaminophen). Our data also demonstrated that rofecoxib, 12.5 and 25 mg, provided comparable clinical efficacy. Based upon these and other data, it is recommended that 12.5 mg be used as the initial dose of rofecoxib for the treatment of OA.38

The NSAIDs are associated with a number of toxic effects, the most important of which are related to the GI tract and the kidney. To firmly establish an improved safety profile of rofecoxib in contrast to NSAIDs, it is important that the safety profiles be compared using doses that provide equivalent efficacy. This study rigorously demonstrated that both once-daily doses (12.5 mg and 25 mg) of rofecoxib (which specifically inhibits COX-2) provided comparable clinical efficacy with ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily (a dual COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitor). Therefore, it is appropriate to compare the safety and tolerability of rofecoxib, 12.5 and 25 mg, with those of ibuprofen, 2400 mg.

It is important to note that no adverse events unique to the specific inhibition of COX-2 were apparent in the rofecoxib treatment groups as assessed in this 6-week controlled clinical trial. All active treatments were generally well tolerated. Adverse experiences potentially attributable to renal effects of COX inhibition, such as edema, hypertension, weight gain, and changes in blood pressure, were comparable in all treatment groups, including the placebo group.

An important clinical adverse effect of NSAIDs is their propensity to lead to serious upper GI tract events, such as perforations, gastric and duodenal ulcerations, and upper GI tract bleeding. In other clinical studies,31,32 as assessed by endoscopy, the incidence of abnormalities of the GI mucosae associated with rofecoxib, 25 and 50 mg, was substantially less than that associated with ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily. Our study was not intended to assess endoscopically diagnosed ulcerations and was not large enough or long enough to compare the incidence of serious upper GI tract events. However, in an overview analysis of all clinical trials39 performed with rofecoxib, including our study, the incidence of serious upper GI tract events was found to be significantly less with rofecoxib compared with NSAIDs.

In summary, we have demonstrated that specific inhibition of COX-2 provides efficacy in the treatment of OA that is comparable with that of high doses of the NSAID ibuprofen. The safety of rofecoxib, 12.5 and 25 mg once daily, was not significantly different from placebo and ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily.

Accepted for publication December 8, 1999.

This work was funded by grants from Merck & Co Inc, West Point, Pa.

Presented as an abstract at the European League Against Rheumatism 14th Congress in Glasgow, Scotland, June 6-12, 1999.

Other members of the Rofecoxib/Ibuprofen Comparator Study Group are as follows: A. Alves de Matos, MD, Lisbon, Portugal; Andre Beaulier, MD, Sainte-Foy, Quebec; Jamie Beier, MD, Esbjerg, Denmark; William Bensen, MD, Hamilton, Ontario; Marco Broggini, MD, Varese, Italy; Ricardo Castro, MD, San Jose, Costa Rica; Leif Ceder, MD, Lesingborg, Sweden; Bernard Combe, MD, Montpellier, France; Peter T. Dawes, MD, Stoke-on-Trent, England; Martin de Arruda-Martins, MD, Sao Paulo, Brazil; H. Eckhardt, MD, Vogtareuth, Germany; Carlos Fuentealba, MD, Santiago, Chile; D. Geissler, MD, Klagenfurt, Austria; Mel Gomes, MD, Lisbon, Portugal; Nigel Gilchrist, MD, Christchurch, New Zealand; Fransisco Gutierrez, MD, Santiago, Chile; Kurt Haas, MD, Stockholm, Sweden; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont, MD, Madrid, Spain; Boulos Haraoui, MD, Montreal, Quebec; Bruce Kirkham, MD, Kogarah, Australia; Peter Kotz, MD, Vienna, Austria; Michel LaRoche, MD, Toulouse Cedex, France; Hans Ivar Lund, MD, Esbjerg, Denmark; Terry Macedo, MD, Auckland, New Zealand; Christian Marcelli, MD, Caen, France; Roberto Marcolongo, MD, Siena, Italy; Lyn March, MD, St Leonards, Australia; Erich Mur, MD, Innsbruck, Austria; Pasquale Oriente, MD, Naples, Italy; G. Passero, MD, Rome, Italy; Karel Pavelka, MD, Prague, Czech Republic; Jean Pierre Pelletier, MD, Montreal, Quebec; F. Raeman, MD, Merksem, Belgium; Erik Rosal, MD, Guatemala City, Guatemala; Peter Ryan, MD, Victoria, Australia; Manfred Shattenkirchner, MD, Munich, Germany; F. Singer, MD, Laab in Walde, Austria; Malcolm Smith, MD, Daws Park, Australia; Hyman Tannenbaum, MD, Montreal, Quebec; Glen Thomson, MD, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Jesus Tornero, MD, Gualadajara, Spain; Desiree Van der Heijde, MD, Maastricht, Holland; Sol Villegas de Morales, MD, Caracas, Venezuela; and P. Villeger, MD, St Gallen, Switzerland.

We thank Magaly Garcia Woolard, Francis D'Anzi, and Jovanni Gonzalez for their help in conducting this study.

Reprints: Briggs W. Morrison, Merck & Co Inc, 126 E Lincoln Ave, RY 32-641, Rahway, NJ 07065.

Vane  JR Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a mechanism of action of aspirin-like drugs. Nat New Biol. 1971;231232- 235
Link to Article
Sirios  JSimmons  DLRichards  J Hormonal regulation of messenger ribonucleic acid encoding a novel isoform of prostaglandin endoperoxide H synthase in rat preovulatory follicles: induction in vivo and in vitro. J Biol Chem. 1992;26711586- 11592
Kujubu  DAFletcher  BSVarnum  BCLim  RWHerschman  HR TIS10, A phorbol ester tumor promoter-inducible mRNA from Swiss 3T3 cells, encodes a novel prostaglandin synthase/cyclooxygenase homologue. J Biol Chem. 1991;26612866- 12872
Xie  WLChipman  JGRobertson  DLErikson  RLSimmons  DL Expression of a mitogen-responsive gene encoding prostaglandin synthase is regulated by mRNA splicing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;882692- 2696
Link to Article
O'Banion  MKWinn  VDYoung  DA cDNA cloning and functional activity of a glucocorticoid-regulated inflammatory cyclooxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;894888- 4892
Link to Article
Seibert  KMasferrer  JL Role of inducible cyclooxygenase (COX-2) in inflammation. Receptor. 1994;417- 23
Kargman  SCharleson  SCartwright  M  et al.  Characterization of prostaglandin G/H synthase 1 and 2 in rat, dog, monkey, and human gastrointestinal tracts. Gastroenterology. 1996;111445- 454
Link to Article
DeWitt  D Prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase: regulation of enzyme expression. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1991;1083121- 134
Link to Article
Wu  KKSanduja  RTsai  ALFerhanoglu  BLoose-Mitchell  DS Aspirin inhibits interleukin-1-induced prostaglandin H synthase expression in cultured endothelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;882384- 2387
Link to Article
Yamagata  KAndreasson  KIKaufmann  WEBarnes  CAWorley  PF Expression of a mitogen-inducible cyclooxygenase in brain neurons: regulation by synaptic activity and glucocorticoids. Neuron. 1993;11371- 386
Link to Article
Kaufman  WEWorley  PFPegg  JBremer  MIsakson  P COX-2, a synaptically induced enzyme, is expressed by excitatory neurons at postsynaptic sites in rat cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;932317- 2321
Link to Article
Lim  HParia  BCDas  SK  et al.  Multiple female reproductive failures in cyclooxygenase 2-deficient mice. Cell. 1997;91197- 208
Link to Article
Kömhoff  MGröne  H-JKlein  TSeyberth  HWNüsing  RM Localization of cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in adult and fetal human kidney: implication for renal function. Am J Physiol. 1997;272F460- F468
Robertson  EP Dominance of cyclooxygenase-2 in the regulation of pancreatic islet prostaglandin synthesis. Diabetes. 1998;471379- 1383
Link to Article
Akaraserennont  PMitchell  JAAppleton  IThiemermann  CVane  JR Involvement of tyrosine kinase in the induction of cyclo-oxygenase and nitric oxide synthase by endotoxin in cultured cells. Br J Pharmacol. 1994;1131522- 1528
Link to Article
Blanco  AHabib  ALevy-Toledano  SMaclouf  J Involvement of tyrosine kinases in the induction of cyclo-oxygenase-2 in human endothelial cells. Biochem J. 1995;312419- 423
Lyons-Giordano  BPratta  MAGalbraith  WDavis  GLArner  EC Interleukin-1 differentially modulates chondrocyte expression of cyclo-oxygenase-2 and phospholipase A2. Exp Cell Res. 1993;20658- 62
Link to Article
Mitchell  JAAkarasereenont  PThiemermann  CFlower  RJVane  JR Selectivity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as inhibitors of constitutive and inducible cyclo-oxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;9011693- 11697
Link to Article
Berenbaum  FJacquyes  CThomas  GCorvol  MTBereziat  GMasliah  J Synergistic effect of interleukin-1 β and tumor necrosis factor α or PGE2 production by articular chondrocytes does not involve PLA2 stimulation. Exp Cell Res. 1996;222379- 384
Link to Article
Vadas  PStefanski  EWloch  MGrouix  Bvan den Bosch  HKennedy  B Secretory non-pancreatic phospholipase A2 and cyclooxygenase-2 expression by tracheobronchial smooth muscle cells. Eur J Biochem. 1996;235557- 563
Link to Article
Meade  EASmith  WLdeWitt  DL Differential inhibition of prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase (cyclooxygenase) isozymes by aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Biol Chem. 1993;2686610- 6614
O'Neill  GPMancini  JAKargman  S  et al.  Overexpression of human prostaglandin G/H synthase-1 and -2 by recombinant vaccinia virus: inhibition by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and biosynthesis of 15-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid. Mol Pharmacol. 1994;45245- 254
Laneuville  OBreuer  DKDewitt  DLHla  TFunk  CDSmith  WL Differential inhibition of human prostaglandin endo-peroxide H synthases-1 and -2 by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;271927- 934
Kargman  SWong  EGreig  GM  et al.  Mechanism of selective inhibition of human prostaglandin G/H synthase-1 and -2 in intact cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 1996;521113- 1125
Link to Article
Berg  JChristoph  TWiderna  MBodenteich  A Isoenzyme specific cyclooxygenase inhibitors: a whole cell assay system using the human erythroleukemic cell line HEL and the human monocytic cell line mono mac 6. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 1997;37179- 186
Link to Article
Gabriel  SEJaakkimainen  LBombardier  C Risk for serious gastrointestinal complications related to use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115787- 796
Link to Article
Bakhle  YSBotting  RM Cyclooxygenase-2 and its regulation in inflammation. Mediators Inflamm. 1996;5305- 323
Link to Article
Masferrer  JLZweifel  BSManning  PT  et al.  Selective inhibition of inducible cyclooxygenase 2 in vivo is anti-inflammatory and non-ulcerogenic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;913228- 3232
Link to Article
Chan  CCBoyce  SBrideau  C  et al.  Pharmacology of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, L745.337: a novel nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent with an ulcerogenic sparing effect in rat and nonhuman primate stomach. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1995;2741531- 1537
Ehrich  EWDallob  Ade Lepeleire  I  et al.  Characterization of rofecoxib as a cyclooxygenase-2 isoform inhibitor and demonstration of analgesia in the dental pain model. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;65336- 347
Link to Article
Laine  LHawkey  CHarper  S  et al.  Effect of the COX-2 specific inhibitor (C-2SI) rofecoxib on ulcer formation: a double-blind comparison with ibuprofen and placebo [abstract]. Gastroenterology. 1999;116A232
Hawkey  CLaine  LMortensen  E  et al.  Treatment of osteoarthritis with rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, was associated with a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers compared to ibuprofen and was comparable to placebo treatment [abstract].  Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the European League Against Rheumatism; 14th Congress June 6-12, 1999 Glasgow, Scotland
Bellamy  NBuchanan  WWGoldsmith  CHCampbell  JStitt  LW Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;151833- 1840
Arnett  FCEdworthy  SMBloch  DA  et al.  The American Rheumatism Association 1987 Revised Criteria for the Classification of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988;31315- 324
Link to Article
Rodda  BEDavis  RL Determining the probability of an important difference in bioavailability. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980;28247- 252
Link to Article
Bellamy  NCarette  SFord  PM  et al.  Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials, III: setting the delta for clinical trials, results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol. 1992;19451- 457
Ehrich  ESchnitzer  TKivitz  A  et al. Rofecoxib Osteoarthritis Pilot Study Group, Effect of specific COX-2 inhibition in osteoarthritis of the knee: a 6 week double blind, placebo controlled pilot study. J Rheumatol. 1999;262438- 2447
Not Available, Rofecoxib prescribing information.  West Point, Pa Merck & Co Inc.
Langman  MJensen  DHarper  S  et al.  Lower incidence of clinically evident upper-GI perforations, ulcers and bleeds in patients treated with rofecoxib vs. nonspecific cyclooxygenase inhibitors [abstract]. Gastroenterology. 1999;116A232

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Randomized trial profile.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Treatment effects over time for the 3 primary clinical efficacy end points. S indicates screening visit; R, randomization visit; and WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Error bars indicate 84% confidence intervals. All active treatments were superior to placebo (P<.001).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Patients discontinued from the study because of lack of efficacy or adverse experience. The rate of discontinuation for lack of efficacy was greater in the placebo group compared with each of the treatment groups (P<.05). The rate of discontinuation for an adverse event was greater only in the ibuprofen group compared with the placebo group (P<.05).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Characteristics by Treatment Assignment*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Efficacy Results by End Point According to Treatment Assignment*

References

Vane  JR Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a mechanism of action of aspirin-like drugs. Nat New Biol. 1971;231232- 235
Link to Article
Sirios  JSimmons  DLRichards  J Hormonal regulation of messenger ribonucleic acid encoding a novel isoform of prostaglandin endoperoxide H synthase in rat preovulatory follicles: induction in vivo and in vitro. J Biol Chem. 1992;26711586- 11592
Kujubu  DAFletcher  BSVarnum  BCLim  RWHerschman  HR TIS10, A phorbol ester tumor promoter-inducible mRNA from Swiss 3T3 cells, encodes a novel prostaglandin synthase/cyclooxygenase homologue. J Biol Chem. 1991;26612866- 12872
Xie  WLChipman  JGRobertson  DLErikson  RLSimmons  DL Expression of a mitogen-responsive gene encoding prostaglandin synthase is regulated by mRNA splicing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;882692- 2696
Link to Article
O'Banion  MKWinn  VDYoung  DA cDNA cloning and functional activity of a glucocorticoid-regulated inflammatory cyclooxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;894888- 4892
Link to Article
Seibert  KMasferrer  JL Role of inducible cyclooxygenase (COX-2) in inflammation. Receptor. 1994;417- 23
Kargman  SCharleson  SCartwright  M  et al.  Characterization of prostaglandin G/H synthase 1 and 2 in rat, dog, monkey, and human gastrointestinal tracts. Gastroenterology. 1996;111445- 454
Link to Article
DeWitt  D Prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase: regulation of enzyme expression. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1991;1083121- 134
Link to Article
Wu  KKSanduja  RTsai  ALFerhanoglu  BLoose-Mitchell  DS Aspirin inhibits interleukin-1-induced prostaglandin H synthase expression in cultured endothelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;882384- 2387
Link to Article
Yamagata  KAndreasson  KIKaufmann  WEBarnes  CAWorley  PF Expression of a mitogen-inducible cyclooxygenase in brain neurons: regulation by synaptic activity and glucocorticoids. Neuron. 1993;11371- 386
Link to Article
Kaufman  WEWorley  PFPegg  JBremer  MIsakson  P COX-2, a synaptically induced enzyme, is expressed by excitatory neurons at postsynaptic sites in rat cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;932317- 2321
Link to Article
Lim  HParia  BCDas  SK  et al.  Multiple female reproductive failures in cyclooxygenase 2-deficient mice. Cell. 1997;91197- 208
Link to Article
Kömhoff  MGröne  H-JKlein  TSeyberth  HWNüsing  RM Localization of cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in adult and fetal human kidney: implication for renal function. Am J Physiol. 1997;272F460- F468
Robertson  EP Dominance of cyclooxygenase-2 in the regulation of pancreatic islet prostaglandin synthesis. Diabetes. 1998;471379- 1383
Link to Article
Akaraserennont  PMitchell  JAAppleton  IThiemermann  CVane  JR Involvement of tyrosine kinase in the induction of cyclo-oxygenase and nitric oxide synthase by endotoxin in cultured cells. Br J Pharmacol. 1994;1131522- 1528
Link to Article
Blanco  AHabib  ALevy-Toledano  SMaclouf  J Involvement of tyrosine kinases in the induction of cyclo-oxygenase-2 in human endothelial cells. Biochem J. 1995;312419- 423
Lyons-Giordano  BPratta  MAGalbraith  WDavis  GLArner  EC Interleukin-1 differentially modulates chondrocyte expression of cyclo-oxygenase-2 and phospholipase A2. Exp Cell Res. 1993;20658- 62
Link to Article
Mitchell  JAAkarasereenont  PThiemermann  CFlower  RJVane  JR Selectivity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as inhibitors of constitutive and inducible cyclo-oxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;9011693- 11697
Link to Article
Berenbaum  FJacquyes  CThomas  GCorvol  MTBereziat  GMasliah  J Synergistic effect of interleukin-1 β and tumor necrosis factor α or PGE2 production by articular chondrocytes does not involve PLA2 stimulation. Exp Cell Res. 1996;222379- 384
Link to Article
Vadas  PStefanski  EWloch  MGrouix  Bvan den Bosch  HKennedy  B Secretory non-pancreatic phospholipase A2 and cyclooxygenase-2 expression by tracheobronchial smooth muscle cells. Eur J Biochem. 1996;235557- 563
Link to Article
Meade  EASmith  WLdeWitt  DL Differential inhibition of prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase (cyclooxygenase) isozymes by aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Biol Chem. 1993;2686610- 6614
O'Neill  GPMancini  JAKargman  S  et al.  Overexpression of human prostaglandin G/H synthase-1 and -2 by recombinant vaccinia virus: inhibition by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and biosynthesis of 15-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid. Mol Pharmacol. 1994;45245- 254
Laneuville  OBreuer  DKDewitt  DLHla  TFunk  CDSmith  WL Differential inhibition of human prostaglandin endo-peroxide H synthases-1 and -2 by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;271927- 934
Kargman  SWong  EGreig  GM  et al.  Mechanism of selective inhibition of human prostaglandin G/H synthase-1 and -2 in intact cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 1996;521113- 1125
Link to Article
Berg  JChristoph  TWiderna  MBodenteich  A Isoenzyme specific cyclooxygenase inhibitors: a whole cell assay system using the human erythroleukemic cell line HEL and the human monocytic cell line mono mac 6. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 1997;37179- 186
Link to Article
Gabriel  SEJaakkimainen  LBombardier  C Risk for serious gastrointestinal complications related to use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115787- 796
Link to Article
Bakhle  YSBotting  RM Cyclooxygenase-2 and its regulation in inflammation. Mediators Inflamm. 1996;5305- 323
Link to Article
Masferrer  JLZweifel  BSManning  PT  et al.  Selective inhibition of inducible cyclooxygenase 2 in vivo is anti-inflammatory and non-ulcerogenic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;913228- 3232
Link to Article
Chan  CCBoyce  SBrideau  C  et al.  Pharmacology of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, L745.337: a novel nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent with an ulcerogenic sparing effect in rat and nonhuman primate stomach. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1995;2741531- 1537
Ehrich  EWDallob  Ade Lepeleire  I  et al.  Characterization of rofecoxib as a cyclooxygenase-2 isoform inhibitor and demonstration of analgesia in the dental pain model. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;65336- 347
Link to Article
Laine  LHawkey  CHarper  S  et al.  Effect of the COX-2 specific inhibitor (C-2SI) rofecoxib on ulcer formation: a double-blind comparison with ibuprofen and placebo [abstract]. Gastroenterology. 1999;116A232
Hawkey  CLaine  LMortensen  E  et al.  Treatment of osteoarthritis with rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, was associated with a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers compared to ibuprofen and was comparable to placebo treatment [abstract].  Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the European League Against Rheumatism; 14th Congress June 6-12, 1999 Glasgow, Scotland
Bellamy  NBuchanan  WWGoldsmith  CHCampbell  JStitt  LW Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;151833- 1840
Arnett  FCEdworthy  SMBloch  DA  et al.  The American Rheumatism Association 1987 Revised Criteria for the Classification of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988;31315- 324
Link to Article
Rodda  BEDavis  RL Determining the probability of an important difference in bioavailability. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980;28247- 252
Link to Article
Bellamy  NCarette  SFord  PM  et al.  Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials, III: setting the delta for clinical trials, results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol. 1992;19451- 457
Ehrich  ESchnitzer  TKivitz  A  et al. Rofecoxib Osteoarthritis Pilot Study Group, Effect of specific COX-2 inhibition in osteoarthritis of the knee: a 6 week double blind, placebo controlled pilot study. J Rheumatol. 1999;262438- 2447
Not Available, Rofecoxib prescribing information.  West Point, Pa Merck & Co Inc.
Langman  MJensen  DHarper  S  et al.  Lower incidence of clinically evident upper-GI perforations, ulcers and bleeds in patients treated with rofecoxib vs. nonspecific cyclooxygenase inhibitors [abstract]. Gastroenterology. 1999;116A232

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 211

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles