Pooled safety analysis of diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% (w/w) in the treatment of osteoarthritis in patients aged 75 years or older.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the safety of diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% (w/w) in 45.5% dimethyl sulfoxide (TDiclo) for the treatment of knee or hand osteoarthritis in persons aged 75 years or older. METHODS: A pooled analysis of safety data from seven multicenter, randomized, blinded, Phase III clinical trials (4-12 weeks' duration) of TDiclo was conducted. The analysis focused on a subset of patients (n = 280) aged 75 years or older with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee (six trials) or hand (one trial). Patients received one of three topical treatments: TDiclo (n = 138); placebo (2.33% or 4.55% dimethyl sulfoxide, n = 39); or control (45.5% dimethyl sulfoxide, n = 103). Treatment groups were compared using Chi-square analysis, Fisher's Exact test, or analysis of variance. RESULTS: The most common adverse events involved the skin or subcutaneous tissue, primarily at the application site. The incidence of dry skin was higher in the TDiclo (36.2%; P < 0.0001) and dimethyl sulfoxide control (18.4%; P = 0.0142) groups than in the placebo group (2.6%); the incidence of other skin or subcutaneous tissue adverse events was similar between the groups. Relatively few patients (<18%) experienced gastrointestinal adverse events, and group differences were not detected. In the TDiclo group, constipation (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and nausea (3.6%) were the most common gastrointestinal adverse events. Cardiovascular and renal/ urinary adverse events were rare, and group differences were not detected. There was one case (0.7%) each of hypertension, spider veins, and vasodilation in the TDiclo group. Changes from baseline to the final visit in blood pressure and hepatic/renal enzyme levels were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: TDiclo appears to be well tolerated for the treatment of osteoarthritis in persons aged 75 years or older.

Coming to terms with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy.

Despite well known complications, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the most commonly prescribed medications in the US for musculoskeletal disorders such as osteoarthritis. Although there has been a recent focus on the cardiovascular and renal complications associated with these agents, NSAID gastropathy continues to be a particular concern in many patients, especially those at increased risk for serious adverse events, including the elderly. Complicating the diagnosis of NSAID gastropathy is its silent course, which, up to half of the time, is asymptomatic. Several strategies are currently employed by physicians to mitigate the risk of serious gastrointestinal events. These include either addition of a proton pump inhibitor to current nonselective NSAID therapy or the use of a cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective NSAID. Although these agents are effective at mitigating the overall risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, they fail to address NSAID-related cardiovascular and renal risks. Due to their reduced systemic absorption, topical NSAIDs may present a viable option for patients at increased risk for serious NSAID-related adverse events, including gastropathy.

Diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% w/w with dimethyl sulfoxide compared with placebo for the treatment of osteoarthritis: pooled safety results.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors are frequently recommended for management of osteoarthritis (OA). However, serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systemic adverse events (AEs) are associated with oral NSAIDs and can be treatment limiting. The efficacy of diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% w/w with dimethyl sulfoxide (TDiclo) has been established as superior to placebo and comparable with oral NSAIDs in the management of OA. This study characterizes the safety and tolerability profile of TDiclo compared with placebo through a pooled analysis of data from 1252 patients in 7 randomized controlled trials across 61 centers in the United States and 97 centers in Canada. Patients received TDiclo (n = 911) or placebo (n = 341) for 4 to 12 weeks for management of OA of the hand or knee. The most frequently reported AE was dry skin, occurring in 33.0% of patients receiving TDiclo and 5.0% of patients receiving placebo (P < 0.001). Dyspepsia was the most common gastrointestinal reaction, reported by 7.7% of patients receiving TDiclo and 2.9% of patients receiving placebo (P = 0.002). Changes in vital signs and laboratory assessments of hepatic and renal function were similar between the 2 groups; TDiclo did not increase mean blood pressure, nor was it associated with hypertension. The rate of serious AEs favored placebo in both groups (0.9% for TDiclo vs 1.5% for placebo; P = 0.358), as did the rate of severe AEs (4.4% vs 7.6%; P = 0.023). The most common reason for study discontinuation was dry skin (2.5% vs 0.3%). Results from this analysis suggest that TDiclo is well tolerated in a large population and may offer an alternative to oral NSAID therapy for OA of the knee or hand, particularly for patients at increased risk for serious systemic AEs. Larger head-to-head, long-term, multicenter trials would be beneficial to further evaluate safety data comparing both topical and oral NSAIDs.

The NSAID dilemma: managing osteoarthritis in high-risk patients.

For decades, evidence-based data and reported experience have warned that the common chronic oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy for osteoarthritis (OA) in elderly patients is ultimately dangerous. Elderly patients with OA are at heightened risk for developing serious gastrointestional and cardiovascular adverse events, including gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prescribing NSAIDs, especially in an elderly population, continues to be discouraged because of these significant risks. A dilemma exists for individuals who need the established efficacy associated with oral NSAIDs but who are at increased risk for serious adverse events associated with these agents. The goal of this clinical review was to evaluate the risks versus benefits of current options in the treatment of OA. This review found that topical NSAIDs seem to be the safest choice among all options to mitigate gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks and should be considered prior to the initiation of oral nonselective or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAIDs for individuals presenting with a localized expression of OA. Further research is needed to evaluate and compare these therapies in treating both pain and inflammation effectively while mitigating safety risks in high-risk populations.

Diclofenac topical solution compared with oral diclofenac: a pooled safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) formulations, which produce less systemic exposure compared with oral formulations, are an option for the management of osteoarthritis (OA). However, the overall safety and efficacy of these agents compared with oral or systemic therapy remains controversial. METHODS: Two 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled, multicenter studies compared the safety and efficacy profiles of diclofenac topical solution (TDiclo) with oral diclofenac (ODiclo). Each study independently showed that TDiclo had similar efficacy to ODiclo. To compare the safety profiles of TDiclo and ODiclo, a pooled safety analysis was performed for 927 total patients who had radiologically confirmed symptomatic OA of the knee. This pooled analysis included patients treated with TDiclo, containing 45.5% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and those treated with ODiclo. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), recording of vital signs, dermatologic evaluation of the study knee, and clinical laboratory evaluation. RESULTS: AEs occurred in 312 (67.1%) patients using TDiclo versus 298 (64.5%) of those taking ODiclo. The most common AE with TDiclo was dry skin at the application site (24.1% vs 1.9% with ODiclo; P < 0.0001). Fewer gastrointestinal (25.4% vs 39.0%; P < 0.0001) and cardiovascular (1.5% vs 3.5%; P = 0.055) AEs occurred with TDiclo compared with ODiclo. ODiclo was associated with significantly greater increases in liver enzymes and creatinine, and greater decreases in creatinine clearance and hemoglobin (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that TDiclo represents a useful alternative to oral NSAID therapy in the management of OA, with a more favorable safety profile.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy: new avenues for safety.

Chronic oral or systemic nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, ubiquitously used by physicians to treat osteoarthritis-associated pain, is associated with a wide range of symptomatic adverse events, the most frequent and serious of which is gastropathy. Although cardiovascular and renal problems are a very real concern, they are significantly less frequent. These complications can be life-threatening in at-risk populations such as older adults, who are common users of long-term oral systemic NSAID therapy. Topical NSAID formulations deliver effective doses of analgesics directly to the affected joints, thereby limiting systemic exposure and potentially the risk of systemic adverse events, such as gastropathy and serious cardiovascular events. There are currently two topical NSAIDs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for osteoarthritis-associated pain, as well as for the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis. This review discusses the relative safety, and the gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal risks of chronic oral or systemic NSAID therapy and topical NSAID formulations in patients with osteoarthritis.

Role of apheresis in rheumatoid arthritis.

Apheresis, a therapeutic procedure that has been available for decades, has recently been added to the long-term management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is a procedure whereby blood is removed from the body and divided into its various components. With the development of specific instrumentation, it has become possible to target the specific cellular or humoral components to be removed or altered. RA is a destructive, chronic progressive disease with high morbidity and significant mortality if it is not treated. Recently, combinations of disease-modifying pharmacotherapeutic agents have successfully been brought to bear on this serious disease. This approach of combining potent anti-inflammatory, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), chemotherapy and biologicals continues with some success but not without significant dangers of severe adverse toxicity, including the risks of sepsis, immunopathology and malignancy. In the setting of RA, various apheresis procedures, with and without these combination modalities, have been tested with variable success. This article reviews that experience as an overall approach to better, safer RA disease management.

Efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution (pennsaid) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) but can produce harmful systemic effects and end-organ damage. A topical NSAID formulation may provide symptom relief with fewer adverse effects. A new topical diclofenac sodium solution-containing the absorption enhancer dimethyl sulfoxide-was evaluated for the relief of the symptoms of primary OA of the knee. METHODS: A total of 326 patients met entry criteria (including abnormal radiographic findings and flare of pain) and were randomized to receive 40 drops of topical diclofenac solution or a vehicle-control solution, 4 times daily, for 12 weeks. We evaluated 3 primary outcome measures, the Western Ontario McMaster Universities LK3.1 OA Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and a patient global assessment, and 2 other measures, stiffness and pain on walking, at baseline and after final application. We assessed safety by evaluation of adverse events, vital signs, and irritation at the application site. RESULTS: Topical diclofenac solution was significantly more effective than the vehicle-control solution for all outcome measures; pain, P = .001; physical function, P = .002; patient global assessment, P = .003; stiffness, P = .005; and pain on walking, P = .004. Among patients receiving topical diclofenac, self-limiting minor skin irritation occurred in 68 (41.5%) of 164 patients, including dryness in 60 (36.6%), rash in 18 (11.0%), and paresthesia, pruritus, and vesiculobullous rash in 1 (0.6%) each. There was no significant difference between groups in NSAID-related gastrointestinal tract complaints or in dropouts due to study-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Topical diclofenac is effective in the treatment of the symptoms of primary OA of the knee, with only minor local irritation and no significant systemic adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of extended-release, once-daily tramadol in chronic pain: a randomized 12-week clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee.

The efficacy and safety of a once-daily extended-release formulation of tramadol hydrochloride (tramadol ER) was evaluated in patients with moderate to severe chronic pain of osteoarthritis (OA). This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week study. Eligible patients with radiographically confirmed OA of the knee meeting the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria, defined by knee pain and presence of osteophytes, plus at least age >50 years, morning stiffness <30 minutes in duration, and/or crepitus, entered a 2-7 day washout period during which all analgesics were discontinued. When pain at the index knee joint reached > or =40 mm (0-100 mm VAS), patients were randomized to tramadol ER or placebo. Tramadol ER was initiated at 100 mg QD and increased to 200 mg QD by the end of 1 week of treatment. After the first week, further increases to tramadol ER 300 mg or 400 mg QD were allowed. Outcome measures included Arthritis Pain Intensity Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Scale (WOMAC) Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function VAS subscales, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Therapy, Sleep, dropouts due to insufficient therapeutic effect, and adverse events. Two hundred forty-six patients were randomized (tramadol ER 124, placebo 122). There were no baseline differences between the two treatments. The mean age was 61 years, mean duration of OA 12.9 years, and the mean tramadol ER dose was 276 mg QD. All efficacy outcome measures favored tramadol ER over placebo. On the primary outcome variable of average change from baseline in Arthritis Pain Intensity VAS over 12 weeks, tramadol ER was superior to placebo (least squares mean change from baseline: 30.4 mm vs. 17.7 mm, P < 0.001). Significant differences from placebo were evident at week 1, the first post-treatment visit. Similarly, outcomes on the WOMAC Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function subscales, the WOMAC Composite Scale, dropouts due to insufficient therapeutic effect, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Therapy, and Sleep were all significantly better with tramadol ER than placebo (P < 0.001 to < 0.05). Treatment with tramadol ER results in statistically significant and clinically important and sustained improvements in pain, stiffness, physical function, global status, and sleep in patients with chronic pain. A once-a-day formulation of tramadol has the potential to provide patients increased control over the management of their pain, fewer interruptions in sleep and improved compliance.

Efficacy and safety of a once-daily morphine formulation in chronic, moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial and an open-label extension trial.

A randomized, 4-week, double-blind trial followed by an open-label extension trial assessed the efficacy and safety of a once-daily, extended-release morphine formulation (Avinza (previously referred to as Morphelan)) in 295 patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain who had failed to obtain adequate pain relief with NSAIDs and acetaminophen. Participants received one of four treatments: Avinza 30 mg once daily (QAM or QPM), MS Contin(R) 15 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily. Patients (n =181) received Avinza QAM or QPM during the 26-week open-label extension trial and could increase their dose to optimize pain control. Avinza and MS Contin reduced pain and improved several sleep measures versus placebo. Analgesic efficacy was comparable between Avinza and MS Contin; however, Avinza QAM demonstrated greater improvements in overall quality of sleep. The most common adverse events were constipation and nausea. The majority of AEs occurred at a similar incidence among the active treatment groups.

Open label study to assess infliximab safety and timing of onset of clinical benefit among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the timing of onset of clinical benefit following the initial infusion of infliximab and to obtain additional safety experience of infliximab when given in an office setting to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition, the safety of reducing the infusion time from 2 hours to 1 hour was evaluated. METHODS: Patients (n = 553) with active RA despite receiving methotrexate (MTX) were treated with infliximab 3 mg/kg given over 2 h at baseline (Week 0), and Weeks 2, 6, and 14 in this multicenter open-label trial. Patients continued to receive a stable dose of MTX (> or = 7.5 mg/wk). At selected sites, patients tolerating the first 4 infusions were eligible to receive 2 additional infusions at twice the usual infusion rate (given over 1 h). Patients returned for efficacy assessments at 48 h following the initial infusion and several times throughout study participation. RESULTS: By 48 h following the first infusion, significant (p < 0.001) improvements were observed in duration of morning stiffness (34% mean improvement), physician's global disease assessment scores (30%), patient's global disease assessment scores (25%), and patient's pain assessment scores (30%). By Week 16, 52 to 63% mean improvements in these efficacy variables were observed (p < 0.001), the significant improvement was maintained through the end of study participation in the subset of patients who received the additional 1 h infliximab infusions. Through 16 weeks, 10% (54/553) of patients reported an adverse event associated with at least 1 of the 4 infusion procedures; the majority were mild and transient in nature. In the subset of 197 patients who received 2 additional infusions over 1 h, no increase in the frequency or severity of infusion-related adverse events was observed compared to the 2 h infusion. CONCLUSION: Infliximab administered to patients with RA in an outpatient setting resulted in significant clinical improvement within 48 h that was sustained with additional infusions. Approximately 10% of patients experienced an infusion reaction, highlighting the need for direct supervision over patient treatment. Patients who tolerated infliximab infusions given over 2 h also tolerated a 1 h infusion.

A new role for opioids in the treatment of arthritis.

Arthritis, rheumatic diseases, spinal and peripheral joint disorders share in common a legacy of chronic pain. At the turn of the millennium, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) had replaced aspirin as the agents most commonly used to deal with rheumatic symptoms, including pain. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) was the most common alternative analgesic for minor pain. Opioids were most commonly used on an ad-lib basis, usually for 'breakthrough' pain. However, neurobiological research has confirmed the basis for 24-hour around-the-clock complete suppression of chronic nonmalignant pain. This avoids the 'wind up' that leads to intractable pain progression. Proper monitoring, in the absence of the end organ toxicity seen with NSAIDs, allows a change in direction to opioids for arthritis for more severe pain. This requires understanding the responsibilities of maintaining opioids, in properly selected patients, based upon host response and informed consent. Under such circumstances, evidence-based trials support the use of stronger opioids in recalcitrant chronic pain of arthritis. Thus, we endeavour to better fulfill our Oath of Hippocrates: 'to relieve pain and suffering'.