Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen (paracetamol) or Celecoxib Efficacy Studies (PACES): two randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover clinical trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis

T Pincus, G Koch, H Lei, B Mangal, T Sokka, R Moskowitz, F Wolfe, A Gibofsky, L Simon, S Zlotnick, J G Fort, T Pincus, G Koch, H Lei, B Mangal, T Sokka, R Moskowitz, F Wolfe, A Gibofsky, L Simon, S Zlotnick, J G Fort

Abstract

Background: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is recommended as the initial pharmacological treatment for knee or hip osteoarthritis. However, survey and clinical trial data indicate greater efficacy for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors.

Design: Two randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover multicentre clinical trials, Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen or Celecoxib Efficacy Studies (PACES).

Patients: Osteoarthritis of knee or hip.

Intervention: "Wash out" of treatment; randomisation; 6 weeks of celecoxib 200 mg/day, acetaminophen 1000 mg four times a day, or placebo; second "wash out;" crossover to 6 weeks of second treatment.

Measurements: Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analogue pain scale, patient preference between two treatments.

Results: Celecoxib was more efficacious than acetaminophen in both periods in both studies; WOMAC and pain scale scores differed at p<0.05 in period II and both periods combined of PACES-a and in periods I and II and both periods combined in PACES-b, but not in period I of PACES-a. Acetaminophen was more efficacious than placebo, generally p<0.05 in PACES-b, and >0.05 in PACES-a. Patient preferences were 53% celecoxib v 24% acetaminophen in PACES-a (p<0.001) and 50% v 32% in PACES-b (p = 0.009); 37% acetaminophen v 28% placebo in PACES-a (p = 0.340) and 48% v 24% in PACES-b (p = 0.007). No clinically or statistically significant differences were seen in adverse events or tolerability among the three treatment groups.

Conclusions: Greater efficacy was seen for celecoxib v acetaminophen v placebo, while adverse events and tolerability were similar. Variation in results and statistical significance in the two different trials are of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of protocol of PACES—double blind, double dummy, clinical trials. Each patient received a drug and a placebo or two placebos in each period.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Change in scores for WOMAC (A and B) and pain visual analogue scale scores on the MDHAQ (C and D) of patients who received 6 weeks' treatment with celecoxib, acetaminophen, or placebo, after a 1 week washout period, in PACES-a and PACES-b.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen or Celecoxib in PACES-a (A) and PACES-b (B). Each patient took two of the three treatments for 6 weeks each. At the final visit, the patient questionnaire asked: "Please compare control of your arthritis during the first and second study periods," with five response options, "much better during first study period," "better during first study period," "no difference in first and second study periods," "better during second study period," "much better during second study period." Patients who responded "much better" or "better" in either period were merged in these analyses.

References

    1. Arthritis Res. 2001;3(2):98-101
    1. J Rheumatol. 2000 Nov;27(11):2635-41
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Jul;44(7):1587-98
    1. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2001 Dec;3(6):473-8
    1. JAMA. 2002 Jan 2;287(1):64-71
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Nov;46(11):2831-5
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Nov;46(11):3046-54
    1. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jan 27;163(2):169-78
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Feb;23(2):137-45
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1983 Nov;26(11):1346-53
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Sep 1;109(5):359-63
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Feb 15;110(4):259-66
    1. J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833-40
    1. Pain. 1989 Jul;38(1):29-33
    1. N Engl J Med. 1991 Jul 11;325(2):87-91
    1. Stat Med. 1991 Jun;10(6):871-89; discussion 889-90
    1. Am J Med. 1991 Sep;91(3):213-22
    1. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
    1. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247-63
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1993 Sep;36(9):1196-206
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Nov;38(11):1535-40
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Nov;38(11):1541-6
    1. Arch Fam Med. 1995 Dec;4(12):1049-55
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Oct;42(10):2220-30
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Jul;44(7):1477-80
    1. JAMA. 1999 Nov 24;282(20):1921-8
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Feb;43(2):378-85
    1. J Rheumatol. 2000 Apr;27(4):1020-7
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 May;43(5):978-87
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Sep;43(9):1905-15

Source: PubMed

3
購読する