Rheumatoid Arthritis: Garner S

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Shea B, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Department of Public Health, St. George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12519610 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive. OBJECTIVES: To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 11 Strand, London, UK, WC1N 5HR. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12137705 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, in which the synovial lining of many joints and tendon sheaths are persistently inflamed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib for treating RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases up to December 2000: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers were scanned for additional references. The manufacturers of rofecoxib, MSD, were also approached by the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence to submit additional evidence to inform it's appraisal on the use of cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors for arthritis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of parallel group design evaluating the efficacy and/or toxicity of rofecoxib in RA, both placebo based and comparative trials were eligible. Relevant outcome criteria had to be available to evaluate efficacy and/or toxicity, such as the OMERACT outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and the results were compared for the degree of agreement. A validated tool (Jadad 1996) was used to score the quality of the randomised controlled trials. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate, continuous outcome measures using mean or standardized mean differences, and dichotomous outcome measures using relative risk ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials evaluating rofecoxib for the treatment of RA were identified and met the inclusion criteria. One compared rofecoxib to placebo and was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several doses of rofecoxib. The second trial compared rofecoxib to naproxen and was primarily designed to assess the safety of rofecoxib so did not include all the recommended RA efficacy measures. The overall number of ACR 20 responders who had received 25mg (82/ 171 = 48%) or 50mg (86/161 = 53%) was statistically significantly more than those receiving placebo (58/168 = 35% ) (RR 1.39 CI: 1.07, 1.80 and RR 1.55 CI: 1.20, 1.99 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the 25 and 50 mg doses. The safety profile of rofecoxib was similar to that of placebo. In the comparative trial, rofecoxib at a dosage of 50 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy to naproxen at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. However, the combined rate of clinically significant complicated gastro-intestinal events (GI) (perforations, ulcers, bleeds, or obstructions) was lower with rofecoxib than with naproxen (RR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63) due to a reduction in the number of ulcers and bleeds. Compared to patients taking naproxen, patients taking rofecoxib had a greater risk of having any cardiovascular event (45/4047 = 1.1% vs 19/4029 =0.47%) (RR 2.36 CI 1.38 to 4.02) and had greater risk of having a non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (18/4047 =0.44% and 4/4029 =0.1%) (RR 4.48, 95% CI, 1.52 to 13.23). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, rofecoxib demonstrates a greater degree of efficacy than placebo, while having a comparable safety profile. Rofecoxib demonstrates a similar degree of efficacy as naproxen, but with a significantly lower rate of ulceration and gastrointestinal bleeding. Rofecoxib was associated with a greater risk for MI, but the exact significance and pathophysiology of this possible relationship is unclear.

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 11 Strand, London, UK, WC1N 5HR. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12076502 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, in which the synovial lining of many joints and tendon sheaths are persistently inflamed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib for treating RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to December 2000: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers were scanned for additional references. The manufacturers of rofecoxib, MSD, were also approached by the UK National Institue for Clincal Excellence to submit additional evidence to inform it's appraisal on the use of cyclo-oxygenase inibitors for arthritis. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies were randomised controlled trials of parallel group design evaluating the efficacy and/or toxicity of rofecoxib in RA, both placebo based and comparative trials were eligible. Relevant outcome criteria had to be available to evaluate efficacy and/or toxicity, such as the OMERACT outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and the results were compared for the degree of agreement. A validated tool (Jadad 1995) was used to score the quality of the randomised controlled trials. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate, continuous outcome measures using mean or standardized mean differences, and dichotomous outcome measures using relative risk ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib in RA were identified and met the criteria. One compared rofecoxib to placebo and the other compared rofecoxib to naproxen. The overall number of ACR 20 responders who had received 25mg (82/ 171 = 48%) or 50mg (86/161 = 53%) was statistically significantly more than those receiving placebo (58/168 = 35% ) (RR 1.39 CI: 1.07, 1.80 and RR 1.55 CI: 1.20, 1.99 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the 25 and 50 mg doses. The safety profile of rofecoxib was similar to that of placebo. In the comparative trial, rofecoxib at a dosage of 50 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy to naproxen at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. However, the combined rate of clinically significant complicated gastro-intestinal events (GI) (perforations, ulcers, bleeds, or obstructions) was lower with rofecoxib than with naproxen (RR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63) due to a reduction in the number of ulcers and bleeds. Patients taking rofecoxib had a greater risk of having a myocardial infarction (MI) than patients taking naproxen (RR 4.03, 95% CI, 2.86 to 5.68). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, rofecoxib demonstrates a greater degree of efficacy than placebo, while having a comparable safety profile. Rofecoxib demonstrates a similar degree of efficacy as naproxen, but with a significantly lower rate of ulceration and gastrointestinal bleeding. Rofecoxib was associated with a greater risk for MI, but the exact significance and pathophysiology of this possible relationship is unclear.

Edworthy S, Zummer M, Garner S, Boire G, Leclercq S, Bykerk V, Kraag G, Markland J, Thomas D, Thomson J, Henderson J. · University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #18597407 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate rheumatology practice in Canada with regard to evaluating disease activity status and treatment regimens in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It was hypothesized that patients with "smoldering" disease activity were not being adequately treated. METHODS: Rheumatologists were invited to participate by the Canadian Rheumatology Association in an audit entitled the Assessment in Rheumatology (AIR) program. From across Canada, 65 rheumatologists participated. One thousand five hundred ninety-six consecutive patients with RA seen in regular clinics were classified according to 4 states of disease activity: remission, controlled adequately, smoldering, and uncontrolled. Demographics (age, sex, geographic region), therapy (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologicals, steroids), joint counts (tender/swollen), comorbidity, and treatment decisions at the time of the visit were recorded. Data were collected at the time of the visit with personal digital assistants (PDA) and aggregated, without personal identifiers, for analysis in SPSS. RESULTS: The majority of patients had "smoldering" (29%) or "uncontrolled" disease (23%), with the remainder in "remission" (15%) or "controlled adequately" (33%) at the time of their visit. Following the appointment, the uncontrolled group had a 100% increase (from 10.4% to 23.4%) in the addition of biological agents; however, there was no significant increase in the rates for those with smoldering disease (19.4% to 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Despite Canada's universal healthcare system, current treatment regimens may not be optimized on the basis of disease activity. A large proportion of patients with RA (29%) seen in Canadian rheumatology practices may be experiencing unnecessary disease for a variety of reasons.

Cullen DJ, Seager JM, Holmes S, Doherty M, Wilson JV, Garrud P, Garner S, Maynard A, Logan RF, Hawkey CJ. · Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, Nottingham, UK. · Aliment Pharmacol Ther. · Pubmed #10651658 links to  free full text

Abstract: AIM: To investigate the pharmacoepidemiology of NSAID usage in Nottingham general practices. DESIGN: Questionnaire sent to 1137 consecutive recipients of an NSAID prescription from 21 doctors in six general practices with computerized records. Patient responses were subsequently linked to data held on the practice records. SETTING: General practices in and around Nottingham, selected to reflect local variations in number of partners, list size, geographical location, deprivation, prescribing burden and prescribing rate. SUBJECTS: Unselected patients receiving NSAIDs prescribed for all indications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indication for treatment, differences in prescribing to different age groups, compliance and overall scheme drug exposure, drug effectiveness and tolerability, possible drug-related adverse events, patients' overall satisfaction with treatment and estimated costs of care. RESULTS: NSAIDs were used for a wide range of conditions and only a small number of patients had rheumatoid arthritis. The main drugs used were ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen. Patients making short-term use of NSAIDs had low compliance if they experienced adverse drug effects, whilst conversely in long-term users, those with high compliance reported more adverse drug effects. Calculated compliance did not vary with age although older patients (over 65 years) claimed in their questionnaires to be more compliant than younger patients. Half the patients reported good or complete symptom relief. Half of those questions (and two thirds of those with good or complete symptom relief) rated their NSAID as the best treatment they had received for their current condition. The frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher in the young and the old, which correlated with the use of anti-ulcer drugs, and increased with the total number of medications used. CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs are used for a wide-range of conditions. They give symptom relief to, and are perceived as effective by, most patients taking them.