Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Evaluation of two doses of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01208181 (A Phase III, Two-Part, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Trial to Assess the Relative Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Doses of MK-0663/Etoricoxib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase III, Two-Part, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Trial to Assess the Relative Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Doses of MK-0663/Etoricoxib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of analgesic treatment options in patients with rheumatoid arthritis related pain.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Etoricoxib and its hidden risks: a case-based review of dermatological, hematological, and cardiovascular complications.EXCLI journal · 2025Review
- Renal effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Review
- Comparison of cardiorenal safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis: a network meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Exosomes as a Novel Anti-Inflammatory Agent and the Current Therapeutic Targets for Rheumatoid Arthritis.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- The Outcome of Stem Cell-Based Therapies on the Immune Responses in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Review
- Effect ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Reviewing primary Sjögren's syndrome: beyond the dryness - From pathophysiology to diagnosis and treatment.International journal of medical sciences · 2017Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is a common component of treatment regimens for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Etoricoxib is a COX-2 selective NSAID that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RA at a dose of 90 mg. The current study further evaluated the efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in RA patients with active disease.
methodsThis was a 2-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in RA (NCT01208181). Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA (according to ARA 1987 revised classification criteria) and were to demonstrate symptom flare upon discontinuation of previous NSAID treatment prior to randomization. Part I was a 6-week, placebo-controlled period to assess the efficacy of etoricoxib 90 mg and etoricoxib 60 mg, each compared to placebo, as well as to each other. Part II was a 6-week period to evaluate the potential benefit of dose escalation from etoricoxib 60 mg to etoricoxib 90 mg after 6 weeks exposure to etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I compared to maintaining a steady dose of etoricoxib 60 mg throughout Parts I and II. Primary endpoints were Disease Activity Score evaluating 28 joints and C reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) index and Patient Global Assessment of Pain (Pain) score (0-100 mm VAS) after 6 weeks of treatment in Part I. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.
resultsIn total, 1404 patients were randomized in a 2:7:7:8 ratio; 1228 patients completed Part I and 713 patients continued to Part II. Both etoricoxib doses were superior to placebo on both primary efficacy endpoints (p = 0.004 for 60 mg and p = 0.034 for 90 mg for DAS28-CRP; p < 0.001 for both doses for PGAP) in Part I. Further in Part I, etoricoxib 90 mg was not significantly different from 60 mg for DAS28-CRP, but did demonstrate a small, but statistically significant decrease in baseline PGAP score vs. 60 mg (p = 0.019). In Part II, there was no significant decrease in PGAP score after increasing to 90 mg in subjects with inadequate pain relief on 60 mg as compared to subjects who stayed on 60 mg. The incidence of AEs and SAEs were similar between etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in both Part I and II.
conclusionBoth etoricoxib 90 mg and 60 mg are superior to placebo in relieving the symptoms of RA. Etoricoxib 90 mg vs 60 mg resulted in a statistically significant, though small, improvement in PGAP score, but not DAS28-CRP. Dose escalation from 60 mg to 90 mg in pain inadequate responders did not significantly improve efficacy. These results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib 90mg in patients with RA. In addition, this study demonstrated that etoricoxib 60 mg is also efficacious and well-tolerated in RA. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT01208181 (registered September 22, 2010).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.