Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Nabumetone”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

[Efficacy and safety of nabumetone in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a comparative clinical trial versus aceclofenac. Study Group of Nabumetone for Osteoarthritis of the Knee].

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs are extensively prescribed for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). This study compared the efficacy and safety of nabumetone with aceclofenac in patients with active knee osteoarthritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase IV, multicentre, prospective, open-label, parallel-group, randomized, three-month treatment, clinical trial, of nabumetone (1-2 g once a day) vs aceclofenac (100 mg two times each day). The main efficacy variable was intensity of pain, evaluated on a Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). In addition: Gonarthrosis Severity Index (GSI)-baseline score > 5 and < 17-, patient and physician Global Assessment of OA Activity, patient and physician Global Assessment of OA progression were assessed. Adverse events incidence and severity were assessed. Three study visits were made on a monthly basis. The main statistical analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). RESULTS: In 12 centres 274 patients were recruited (137/group), aged 62.5 +/- 8.4 years, of whom 189 completed the trial (97 nabumetone and 92 aceclofenac). 90% were female, and 83% of the patients had both knees affected. In both groups the intensity of pain at month 3 improved significantly (p < 0.001) with respect to baseline: VAS of the nabumetone group: 6.1 +/- 1.9 to 4.3 +/- 2.8 cm; VAS of the aceclofenac group: 6.1 +/- 1.9 to 4.4 +/- 2.7 cm. There were no significant differences in any of the intergroup comparisons made. 15 nabumetone-treated and 23 aceclofenac-treated patients withdrew from the study due to moderate to severe adverse events. Gastrointestinal adverse events were the reason for withdrawal in 7 nabumetone and 14 aceclofenac-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of nabumetone are similar to those of aceclofenac in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

Aged↗
PubMed1987

Controlled evaluation of nabumetone in the treatment of active adult rheumatoid arthritis. Nabumetone versus naproxen double-blind parallel study.

Nabumetone is a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent. Therapy with nabumetone 1,000 mg given at bedtime was compared with naproxen 250 mg given twice daily in a prospective double-blind study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Both drugs were found to be efficacious in a comparable fashion. Both drugs were well tolerated in terms of patient withdrawal rates, which were 5 and 8 percent, respectively. Gastrointestinal side effects were the most commonly encountered problem. Nabumetone holds promise as an important new therapeutic approach in arthritis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Health-related quality-of-life effects of oxaprozin and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA). Nabumetone and oxaprozin are 2 of the newer NSAIDs and have been shown to have similar safety and efficacy profiles. Nabumetone 1000 mg to 1500 mg once a day (QD) and oxaprozin 1200 mg QD are commonly recommended doses. This study compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients receiving oxaprozin 1200 mg QD with that of patients receiving nabumetone 1000 mg QD or nabumetone 1500 mg QD for the treatment of signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. Two similarly designed, independent, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trials were conducted. In trial 1, patients were randomized to receive oxaprozin 1200 mg QD (n = 109), nabumetone 1000 mg QD (n = 110), or placebo (n = 109); in trial 2, patients received oxaprozin 1200 mg QD (n = 116), nabumetone 1500 mg QD (n = 115), or placebo (n = 116). HRQOL was measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form-36 Health Survey (1-week recall period) at baseline and weeks 2 and 6. Data from the 2 trials were combined to assess differences across the 4 groups in 8 domains and 2 summary scores at baseline, and changes in HRQOL scores at weeks 2 and 6. At week 2, the oxaprozin group showed significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in role physical, vitality, and mental component summary (MCS) scores (P < 0.05), and in physical functioning, bodily pain, social functioning, and physical component summary (PCS) scores (P < 0.01). The nabumetone 1500-mg group showed significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in bodily pain and social functioning (P < 0.05), and in vitality and MCS score (P < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the nabumetone 1000-mg and placebo groups. At week 2, the oxaprozin group showed a greater change than the nabumetone 1000-mg group in PCS score (P < 0.05). At week 6, oxaprozin treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement than placebo in physical functioning, role physical, and bodily pain (P < 0.05); social functioning, role emotional, and mental health (P < 0.01); and vitality and MCS score (P < 0.001). The nabumetone 1500-mg group showed significantly greater responses than the placebo group in vitality (P < 0.05), mental health (P < 0.01), and MCS score (P < 0.001). The oxaprozin group had significantly better scores than the nabumetone 1500-mg group in the PCS (P < 0.05), and it showed significantly greater improvement than the nabumetone 1000 mg group in role physical and PCS score (P < 0.01) and in role emotional (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between placebo and nabumetone 1000 mg at week 6. Results of this study suggest that oxaprozin 1200 mg QD has a significant positive impact on the HRQOL of patients with OA of the knee compared with nabumetone 1000 mg QD and placebo.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Nabumetone: therapeutic use and safety profile in the management of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Nabumetone is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory prodrug, which exerts its pharmacological effects via the metabolite 6-methoxy-2-naphthylacetic acid (6-MNA). Nabumetone itself is non-acidic and, following absorption, it undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism to form the main circulating active metabolite (6-MNA) which is a much more potent inhibitor of preferentially cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2. The three major metabolic pathways of nabumetone are O-demethylation, reduction of the ketone to an alcohol, and an oxidative cleavage of the side-chain occurs to yield acetic acid derivatives. Essentially no unchanged nabumetone and < 1% of the major 6-MNA metabolite are excreted unchanged in the urine from which 80% of the dose can be recovered and another 10% in faeces. Nabumetone is clinically used mainly for the management of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to reduce pain and inflammation. The clinical efficacy of nabumetone has also been evaluated in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, soft tissue injuries and juvenile RA. The optimum oral dosage of nabumetone for OA patients is 1 g once daily, which is well tolerated. The therapeutic response is superior to placebo and similar to nonselective COX inhibitors. In RA patients, nabumetone 1 g at bedtime is optimal, but an additional 0.5-1 g can be administered in the morning for patients with persistent symptoms. In RA, nabumetone has shown a comparable clinical efficacy to aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), diclofenac, piroxicam, ibuprofen and naproxen. Clinical trials and a decade of worldwide safety data and long-term postmarketing surveillance studies show that nabumetone is generally well tolerated. The most frequent adverse effects are those commonly seen with COX inhibitors, which include diarrhoea, dyspepsia, headache, abdominal pain and nausea. In common with other COX inhibitors, nabumetone may increase the risk of GI perforations, ulcerations and bleedings (PUBs). However, several studies show a low incidence of PUBs, and on a par with the numbers reported from studies with COX-2 selective inhibitors and considerably lower than for nonselective COX inhibitors. This has been attributed mainly to the non-acidic chemical properties of nabumetone but also to its COX-1/COX-2 inhibitor profile. Through its metabolite 6-MNA, nabumetone has a dose-related effect on platelet aggregation, but no effect on bleeding time in clinical studies. Furthermore, several short-term studies have shown little to no effect on renal function. Compared with COX-2 selective inhibitors, nabumetone exhibits similar anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties in patients with arthritis and there is no evidence of excess GI or other forms of complications to date.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Efficacy of nabumetone versus diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

The efficacy of nabumetone was compared with that of diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients > or = 18 years with clinical and radiographic evidence of OA or RA (functional class I, II, or III), who provided written informed consent, were eligible. To mimic real-life therapy, no washout phase preceded randomization. Eligible patients were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive nabumetone or a comparator NSAID for 12 weeks. Thus a total of 4,411 eligible patients were randomized to receive nabumetone (N = 3,315) or one of the comparator NSAIDs (N = 1,096). Initial daily doses were: nabumetone, 1,000 mg; diclofenac, 100 mg; naproxen, 500 mg; ibuprofen, 1,200 mg; piroxicam, 10 mg. Dosage increases were permitted after a 2-week trial period. All patients were evaluated at baseline, and at 4 and 12 weeks. Of all patients randomized, approximately 46% had RA and approximately 54% had OA. Demographic characteristics were similar for the nabumetone and comparator NSAID treatment groups. In OA, nabumetone was as effective as the comparator NSAIDs in the physician and patient global assessments of disease activity, in improving the Activities and Lifestyle Index, and in decreasing the degree of pain. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients withdrawn for lack of efficacy when treated with nabumetone or one of the comparator NSAIDs. In contrast, nabumetone was significantly (p < or = 0.02) more effective than the comparator NSAIDs in RA patients for the global assessments of disease activity, pain relief, and improving the Activities and Lifestyle Index, primarily due to the poor response in the ibuprofen and piroxicam treatment groups. Furthermore, fewer nabumetone-treated RA patients (8.8%) withdrew for lack of efficacy than those treated with diclofenac (10.3%), naproxen (11%), piroxicam (13.5%), or ibuprofen (13.2%). In conclusion, in a large, randomized, open-label trial that mimicked real-life therapy, nabumetone was as effective as diclofenac, naproxen, piroxicam, and ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with OA. However, in RA, nabumetone was significantly more effective than the comparator NSAIDs, and fewer patients were withdrawn because of lack of efficacy.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Effect of the antiinflammatory prodrug, nabumetone and its principal active metabolite on rat gastric mucosal, aortic and platelet eicosanoid synthesis, in vitro and ex vivo.

Nabumetone is a novel non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug which although a weak cyclooxygenase inhibitor is converted by the liver to metabolites that are more potent inhibitors of cyclooxygenase. Nabumetone may thus avoid the occurrence of prostanoid-mediated gastropathy while maintaining its efficacy as an antiinflammatory agent. We compared the effect of nabumetone and 6-methoxy-2-naphthylacetic acid (6-MNA; the principal active metabolite of nabumetone) with that of naproxen and indomethacin on the synthesis of rat gastric prostaglandins I2 and E2, in vitro and ex vivo. Ex vivo platelet TXA2 and aortic PGI2 synthesis was also investigated in order to assess peripheral activity of nabumetone metabolites. In vitro, nabumetone was completely without effect on gastric mucosal prostanoid synthesis, whereas indomethacin, naproxen and 6-MNA (in this order of potency) inhibited prostanoid synthesis. Ex vivo, low dose naproxen and indomethacin (less than 5mg.kg-1) markedly inhibited gastric mucosal prostanoid synthesis at 30 min and 2 h post gavage, whereas nabumetone was without significant effect. Nabumetone administration also resulted in the inhibition of platelet TXA2 synthesis, whereas aortic PGI2 synthesis was unaltered. These data indicate that the administration of nabumetone may avoid NSAID gastropathy by leaving gastric mucosal prostanoid synthesis intact and also that the active metabolite(s) of nabumetone are effective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase in an NSAID-target tissue (platelet). The lack of effect of nabumetone administration on vascular PGI2 synthesis may confer an additional advantage over other NSAIDs, since the inhibition of peripheral PGI2 has been implicated in hypertensive and nephrotoxic side effects of NSAIDs.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A double-masked comparison of Naprelan and nabumetone in osteoarthritis of the knee. Naprelan Study Group.

The efficacy and safety of Naprelan (naproxen sodium) 1000 mg once daily (QD) and nabumetone 1500 mg QD were compared in a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-masked, 4-week study of adult outpatients with active osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Nabumetone 1500 mg was chosen for comparison because it is commonly prescribed in a QD dosing regimen for OA. After a washout period free of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 279 patients were enrolled and assigned randomly to treatment with either Naprelan 1000 mg QD (n = 92), nabumetone 1500 mg QD (n = 93), or placebo (n = 94). All treatments were evaluated for efficacy and safety at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4 of the treatment period or at discontinuation. Demographic characteristics were comparable among all treatment groups. As might be expected in a study of OA of the knee, a majority of patients enrolled were women (68.8%), and many were obese (mean weight, 195.6 lb; mean height, 66 in). Significantly fewer patients (13) treated with Naprelan prematurely discontinued the study than did patients treated with placebo (27); there was a lower rate of discontinuation for insufficient therapeutic effect in the Naprelan group compared with the nabumetone and placebo groups. Using an intent-to-treat model, the overall distribution of scores in all three primary efficacy assessments (investigator's global assessment of OA, patient's global assessment of OA, and walking pain) at week 2 and at the last visit was significantly better for the Naprelan group compared with both the nabumetone and placebo groups. The mean improvement from baseline was also significant for Naprelan compared with the nabumetone and placebo groups for all three assessments at week 2 and for investigator's global assessment of OA and walking pain at the last visit. The nabumetone-treated group showed significant improvement over the placebo-treated group in only one primary assessment: mean change from baseline in patient's global assessment of OA at week 2. At week 2, significant differences favoring Naprelan versus nabumetone and placebo were measured in overall distribution of scores for joint tenderness and nighttime pain. Distribution of quality of sleep and inactivity stiffness scores also improved relative to placebo at week 2. At the last visit, nighttime pain scores were still significantly better for patients receiving Naprelan versus nabumetone and placebo. Patients receiving nabumetone had statistically significant improvement from baseline in inactivity stiffness compared with placebo at week 2. There were no clinically important differences among treatment groups in the occurrence of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities. The results of this 4-week study of Naprelan 1000 mg QD compared with nabumetone 1500 mg QD demonstrate at least equal efficacy (superior efficacy was demonstrated for several parameters) and equal safety in adult outpatients with active OA of the knee.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

[Comparison of the efficacy and safety of nabumetone and diclofenac sodium in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of nabumetone and diclofenac sodium in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A hundred and twenty-five patients with active RA were enrolled in a randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter, 12-week study treating with nabumetone (1 000 mg/day) or diclofenac sodium (75 mg/day). Clinical assessments were performed before beginning therapy, and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Endoscopy was performed respectively before and 12 weeks after the medication in all patients. RESULTS: The total efficacy rate of nabumetone was as high as that of diclofenac sodium (92.31% vs 88.52%, chi(2) = 1.114, P = 0.573). nabumetone treated patients showed significant improvement both in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (38.74 mm/1 h vs 25.56 mm/1 h, F = 14.005, P < 0.01 in nabumetone group, and 42.74 mm/1 h vs 34.36 mm/1 h, F = 3.811, P > 0.05, in diclofenac sodium group respectively) and C-reactive protein (2.08 mg/dl vs 1.21 mg/dl, F = 6.495, P < 0.05 in nabumetone group; and 3.29 mg/dl vs 2.31 mg/dl, F = 2.968, P > 0.05 in diclofenac sodium group respectively). The variety and incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms attributed to nabumetone was comparable to that of diclofenac sodium. The mean score of endoscopic lesions in the nabumetone group was significantly lower in the end of the treatment than those of their base line scoring (P < 0.01), and there was no significant change with regard to the diclofenac sodium group. The incidence of ulcer disease associated with nabumetone was 0% and 2.70% with diclofenac sodium. CONCLUSION: nabumetone is as effective as diclofenac sodium in controlling the signs and symptoms of RA. However, GI lesions under the endoscope in the nabumetone group seemed to be less severe than that of the diclofenac sodium group.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

Safety evaluation of nabumetone in United States clinical trials.

A total of 1,924 persons (rheumatoid arthritis, 835; osteoarthritis, 1,073; volunteers, 16) received nabumetone in United States clinical trials. Nine hundred eighty-eight patients have received nabumetone treatment for periods of more than one year, and 375 patients have received treatment for longer than two years. Four hundred eighty patients over 65 years of age have received treatment with nabumetone, and 224 of these elderly patients have received treatment for periods of more than one year. The nabumetone dose most commonly used in all double-blind trials was 1,000 mg at night. In long-term, open-label studies, which were usually extensions of the double-blind trials, patients could increase the dose to 2,000 mg per day. Nine hundred nineteen patients received doses of more than 1,000 mg per day. Adverse experience information was collected at each visit, including information for some patients receiving treatment for more than three years. Laboratory data were collected periodically throughout the trials, and the data were assessed for trends over time. The adverse experience pattern observed for nabumetone is similar to that described for clinical trial data for other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, it is noteworthy that the pattern observed for nabumetone is from clinical trials with approximately 1,000 patients receiving treatment for periods of one year or more. This long-term patient exposure in clinical trials far exceeds long-term clinical trial data for other agents. The types and frequencies of adverse experiences reported by persons treated with nabumetone are relatively constant over the long time period covered by these trials. Also, the adverse experience patterns remained generally constant over time for various populations: all patients, patients 65 or older, female patients, male patients, and patients who received an increased dose of nabumetone. Although some statistically significant trends were detected for some laboratory parameters, there was little indication of significant clinical patterns. Although there were patients with individually important laboratory values, nabumetone was not associated with clinically important adverse laboratory patterns. Overall, the adverse experience data and laboratory data indicate that nabumetone is safe for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Safety experience with nabumetone versus diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

The comparative safety of nabumetone (1,000-2,000 mg/day) versus diclofenac (100-200 mg/day), naproxen (500-1,500 mg/day), piroxicam (10-20 mg/day), and ibuprofen (1,200-3,200 mg/day) was evaluated in a 12-week, randomized, open-label, multicenter study. Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were enrolled in a 3:1 ratio (nabumetone:one of the four comparator NSAIDs). The incidence of > or = 1 adverse event considered by the investigator to be related or probably related to therapy was similar in all groups. However, significantly (p < 0.02) more diclofenac-treated patients experienced abdominal pain and/or gastritis than nabumetone-treated patients. Naproxen-treated patients experienced significantly (p < 0.002) more dyspepsia as compared with patients treated with nabumetone or ibuprofen and significantly (p < or = 0.001) more nabumetone-treated patients experienced diarrhea than patients treated with naproxen, ibuprofen, or piroxicam. Ulcers occurred in one (0.03%) nabumetone-treated patient versus six (0.5%) patients treated with one of the comparator NSAIDs (p = 0.001). A decrease in hemoglobin > or = 1.5 g/dL occurred in fewer nabumetone-treated patients than in patients treated with diclofenac (p < 0.04), ibuprofen (p < or = 0.04), or piroxicam (p = 0.055). Finally, a similar percentage of patients in all treatment groups withdrew from the study because of adverse events related or probably related to treatment. More (p < 0.001) diclofenac-treated patients withdrew because of elevated hepatic transaminases than patients treated with the other agents. Withdrawal because of gastritis was also noted for more diclofenac-treated patients than nabumetone-treated patients (p < 0.04). In conclusion, nabumetone was demonstrated to be at least as safe as diclofenac, piroxicam, ibuprofen, and naproxen as related to subjective complaints, such as dyspepsia or gastritis. However, more serious events, such as ulcers or meaningful decreases in hemoglobin, seem to occur less often with nabumetone.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Efficacy and safety of nabumetone versus diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in the elderly.

In a randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter, 12-week study, the efficacy and safety of nabumetone (1,000-2,000 mg/day) versus diclofenac (100-200 mg/day), naproxen (500-1,500 mg/day), ibuprofen (1,200-3,200 mg/day), or piroxicam (10-20 mg/day) were evaluated in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results in elderly patients (> or = 65 years of age) are presented. Nabumetone was as effective as the comparator nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of elderly OA and RA patients. Ibuprofen and diclofenac caused significantly (p < 0.05) more abdominal pain than nabumetone (8.5%, 13.1%, and 4.1%, respectively). The frequency of abdominal pain was dose related for all NSAIDs except nabumetone. Diarrhea was reported by significantly (p < 0.02) more nabumetone-treated (6.6%) than ibuprofen-treated (0.9%) elderly patients, but the incidence of diarrhea was not dose related. There were no clinically significant changes in renal function with nabumetone or the comparator NSAIDs. A significant change in hepatic enzymes occurred in elderly patients treated with diclofenac (3.3%), which was different than for patients treated with nabumetone (p < 0.04), naproxen (p < 0.06), or ibuprofen (p < 0.06). With regard to withdrawals for adverse events, more (p < 0.04) piroxicam-treated patients (4.9%) withdrew than nabumetone-treated patients (1%). In addition, doubling the dose of nabumetone from 1,000 mg/day to 2,000 mg/day did not result in a proportional increase in adverse events. However, with the comparator NSAIDs, proportional increases in adverse events occurred with increased dose. Finally, the efficacy and safety of nabumetone in elderly patients were similar to the efficacy and safety observed in nonelderly patients.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

A placebo-controlled study of interaction between nabumetone and acenocoumarol.

AIMS: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients treated with oral anticoagulants is generally discouraged due to the risk of interactions that could increase the risk of bleeding complications. Available data suggest the NSAID, nabumetone, does not produce such an interaction. We investigated whether nabumetone would interact with acenocoumarol, an oral anticoagulant widely used in some European countries. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted evaluating nabumetone (1-2 g daily for up to 4 weeks) in osteoarthritis patients with thromboembolic risk previously stabilized on acenocoumarol. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients whose International Normalized Ratio (INR) remained within established margins and whose acenocoumarol dose was not changed. Fifty-six patients were randomized to receive nabumetone (n=27) or placebo (n=29). RESULTS: Eighteen patients in each group (67% for nabumetone and 62% for placebo) completed the study without showing INR or acenocoumarol dose changes, and were considered as study successes. Nine patients (33%) with nabumetone and 11 (38%) with placebo were considered study failures in the intention-to-treat analysis (one patient on nabumetone and four on placebo did not complete the study due to reasons not related to INR and acenocoumarol dose changes). No significant differences were found between groups with regard to study successes. There were two minor bleeding complications, one in each group. Six patients per group presented with eight adverse experiences in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with nabumetone did not alter INR levels compared with placebo in patients stabilized on oral acenocoumarol who require NSAID therapy. These results suggest that nabumetone does not produce a clinically relevant interaction with acenocoumarol. In orally anticoagulated patients without other associated risk factors, treatment with nabumetone for up to 4 weeks does not require increased monitoring of INR levels.

Acenocoumarol↗
PubMed2006

Treatment of patients with osteoarthritis with rofecoxib compared with nabumetone.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib and nabumetone were developed to provide gastrointestinal benefits over traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, there is limited comparative information relating to these 2 drugs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare rofecoxib and nabumetone, at their lower, recommended doses, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Nine hundred seventy-eight patients with knee OA and a positive history of NSAID response were randomized to 12.5 mg rofecoxib per day (N=390), nabumetone 500 mg twice a day (N=392), or placebo (N=196) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was percent of patients with a "good" or "excellent" Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) at week 6; PGART was also evaluated over days 1 to 6. Additional end points included investigator assessment of response, pain walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, joint tenderness, discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy, and quality of life. Adverse experiences (AEs) were collected. RESULTS: Significantly more rofecoxib (50.4%) than nabumetone (43.3%, P=0.043) or placebo (29.5%, P<0.001) patients had a good or excellent PGART at week 6. Median time to a good or excellent PGART was significantly shorter with rofecoxib (52 hours) than nabumetone (100 hours, P=0.001) or placebo (>124 hours, P<0.001). Results for rofecoxib and nabumetone were similar in all additional end points except pain in walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, in both of which the rofecoxib treatment group demonstrated better results. There were significantly (P<0.050) more overall and serious AEs and discontinuations resulting from AEs with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Five rofecoxib and one nabumetone patients had confirmed thrombotic cardiovascular events (P=0.123). Information on thrombotic cardiovascular events from this study was included in a published, prespecified pooled analysis and is included here for completeness. CONCLUSIONS: At their recommended starting doses for OA, both agents were more effective than placebo. Rofecoxib at a dosage of 12.5 mg demonstrated significantly better efficacy in PGART than 1000 mg nabumetone in these patients known to be NSAID responders. Significantly more AEs occurred with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Considering these data and other recent safety information regarding cyclooxygenase-2 selective and nonselective NSAIDS, physicians must make risk/benefit assessments for each individual patient when considering the use of these agents, as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1993

Nabumetone: a "nonacidic" nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetic disposition, dosage recommendations, adverse effects, drug interactions, and efficacy of nabumetone in patients with selected rheumatic disorders and soft-tissue injuries. DATA SOURCES: Data from scientific literature were extracted, evaluated, and summarized for presentation. A MEDLINE search was conducted using the following indexing terms: antiinflammatory agents, nonsteroidal, nabumetone, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and osteoarthritis (OA). Studies evaluating nabumetone reported in articles, abstracts, or proceedings involving human subjects were considered for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION: Special consideration was given to clinical studies using double-blind, randomized, parallel, controlled designs. Studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of nabumetone with placebo and other nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from human studies published in the English language were evaluated. Trials were assessed according to study design, sample size, and description of outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nabumetone is a nonacidic prodrug that is metabolized to an active nonsteroidal antiinflammatory moiety, 6-methoxy-2-naphthylacetic acid (6-MNA). 6-MNA is a structural analog of naproxen. Like naproxen and other NSAIDs, 6-MNA possesses analgesic, antipyretic, and antiinflammatory activity, 6-MNA has a prolonged elimination half-life, ranging from 17 to 74 hours, which allows for once-daily dosing. The efficacy of nabumetone for treating symptoms of RA and OA has been established in controlled clinical trials. Nabumetone also has been studied in ankylosing spondylitis and soft-tissue injuries. Adverse effects associated with nabumetone are similar to those associated with other NSAIDs. Gastrointestinal reactions occur most frequently in the form of abdominal pain or indigestion, nausea, or vomiting. Central nervous system adverse effects occur less frequently, and are followed in order of occurrence by rashes. CONCLUSIONS: Nabumetone is a prodrug metabolized to an active metabolite structurally related to naproxen. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nabumetone, but no advantages over the many other NSAIDs now available.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed1995

A multicenter study of nabumetone and diclofenac SR in patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first Canadian study of the comparative efficacy and safety of nabumetone and diclofenac SR in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip, knee and shoulder. METHODS: Nabumetone 1000-1500 mg po daily was compared to diclofenac SR 100-150 mg po daily in a 6-month, double blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel trial. Initial starting doses were nabumetone 1000 mg daily and diclofenac SR 100 mg daily, with optional subsequent one-level dose titration permitted after 2 weeks on lower dose up to 1500 mg nabumetone and 150 mg diclofenac SR. The primary outcome measures were overall pain and disease activity as assessed by physician and patient. Secondary efficacy measures included tenderness, swelling, limitation of motion, duration of morning stiffness, acetaminophen consumption, physician and patient global assessment, and patient evaluation of efficacy and tolerability. Following an initial screening visit and a 2 to 7 day nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug free washout period (i.e., randomization), patients were assessed at Weeks 2, 8, 14, 20, and 26. RESULTS: In all, 382 patients [nabumetone (n = 192), diclofenac SR (n = 190)] participated in the trial. Improvement in all efficacy variables was noted, but there was no statistically significant difference between drugs. Significantly fewer (p = 0.01) patients reported upper gastrointestinal (GI) adverse experiences in the nabumetone group. Significantly fewer (p < 0.04) patients withdrew from the study for adverse experiences in the nabumetone (14%) than the diclofenac SR (23%) group, particularly from upper abdominal pain (p < 0.04) and dyspepsia (p = 0.02). Three patients treated with diclofenac SR and none with nabumetone developed upper GI ulcers or bleeds. The number of patients experiencing clinically important elevations in transaminases (p < 0.04) or BUN/creatinine (p < 0.03) was significantly lower in the nabumetone group. CONCLUSION: Nabumetone is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with OA of the hip, knee or shoulder. In this group of patients it was similar in efficacy and superior in tolerability to diclofenac SR.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the safety and efficacy of orally administered etodolac and nabumetone in patients with active osteoarthritis of the knee.

This 4-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of etodolac and nabumetone in the treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Ninety-one patients received etodolac 400 mg twice daily, 89 received nabumetone 1500 mg once daily, and 90 received placebo. Both active treatments significantly improved the patients' condition relative to baseline (P < or = 0.001) at all evaluations during treatment and relative to placebo (P < or = 0.05) by visit 4. Improvement relative to placebo in investigator's global assessments was earlier in the etodolac group (ie, by visit 3) than in the nabumetone group. At visit 4, improvement in investigator's and patient's global assessment scores, and in the distribution of investigator's assessment scores, was significantly (P < or = 0.05) greater in the etodolac group than in the nabumetone group. Other than hypokalemia, which occurred only in three patients in the nabumetone group (P = 0.035), there were no significant differences among the groups in the frequency of study events or premature discontinuation from the study as a result of study events. Study events considered at least possibly treatment related were reported for 26 patients in the etodolac group (28.6%), 20 in the nabumetone group (22.5%), and 23 in the placebo group (25.6%). The most frequently reported symptoms for all groups were dyspepsia, nausea, and headache. Four patients treated with nabumetone (4.5%) had elevations in aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase during treatment. The results of this study show that etodolac 400 mg twice daily is at least as effective as nabumetone 1500 mg once daily and is equally well tolerated in the treatment of patients with active OA of the knee; etodolac may have an earlier onset of action and/or a relatively greater efficacy in patient and investigator global assessments than nabumetone.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Gastrointestinal safety profile of nabumetone: a meta-analysis.

Individual comparative studies suggest that nabumetone has a gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile superior to comparator NSAIDs but lack power to show a statistical difference. The aim of this study was to evaluate systematically the difference in GI adverse events--especially the rate of perforations, ulcers, and bleeds (PUBs)-- between studies, meta-analyses of comparative trials of nabumetone and conventional NSAIDs, and postmarketing, open-label studies of nabumetone meeting predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A fully recursive literature search identified 13 studies consisting of 29 treatment arms and 49,501 patients that met the predefined criteria. Tests for heterogeneity found no significant difference between studies of each subgroup. Overall, the dyspeptic symptoms flatulence, constipation, and diarrhea were the most commonly reported adverse events accounting for 98.6% of the total GI adverse events. Significantly more patients treated with a comparator NSAID experienced GI adverse events than did those taking nabumetone (P = 0.007). After adjustment for patient-exposure years, PUBs were 10 to 36 times more likely to develop in patients treated with a comparator NSAID than with nabumetone. This was consistently seen in patients in nonendoscopic (n = 7,468) and endoscopic studies (n = 244). In the analysis of postmarketing or open-label studies of nabumetone, only one PUB was reported per 500 patient-exposure years over 17,502 treatment years (n = 39,389). GI adverse event-related dropouts and hospitalizations were increased by 1.3- and 3.7-fold if patients were treated with a comparator NSAID than with nabumetone. Significantly fewer treatment-related GI adverse events, especially PUBs, are seen in patients treated with nabumetone than with a comparator NSAID. Nabumetone is very safe for the GI tract.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 1200 mg/d of oxaprozin and 1500 mg/d of nabumetone in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

This 6-week, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the recommended starting dose of oxaprozin (1200 mg/d) and a 1500-mg/d dose of nabumetone in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. A total of 347 patients with a mean age of 61.1 years were randomized to receive oxaprozin (116 patients), nabumetone (115 patients), or placebo (116 patients). Adults of either sex who were older than 18 years of age were eligible for entry into the study, if they had had OA of the knee for at least 6 months. Efficacy variables included knee pain on weight bearing, knee pain on motion, patients' and physicians' global assessments of OA, pain intensity as measured on a visual analog scale, and time to walk 50 feet as quickly as possible. Efficacy variables were assessed at baseline and at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6. Between-group differences in efficacy variables were evident by week 1. Mean improvements were significantly greater with oxaprozin than with placebo for all efficacy variables at all time periods, except knee pain on motion at weeks 2 and 4 and time to walk 50 feet at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Mean improvements were significantly greater with nabumetone than with placebo for all efficacy variables at all time periods, except the following: knee pain on weight bearing at weeks 2, 4 and 6; knee pain on motion at weeks 2 and 4; patients' global assessment at week 4; and pain intensity as measured on a visual analog scale at weeks 2 and 4. There were, however, no significant differences between oxaprozin and nabumetone in any of these efficacy variables. Adverse events were reported by 83 (71.6%) patients who took oxaprozin, by 80 (69.6%) patients who took nabumetone, and by 57 (49.1%) patients who took placebo. Adverse events were reported for significantly more patients taking oxaprozin or nabumetone than placebo. However, adverse events tended to be mild or moderate and rarely resulted in patients withdrawing from the study. Combined with the results of an earlier study, the results of this study showed that a 1500-mg/d dose of nabumetone, which is higher than the recommended starting dose of 1000 mg/d, is required for efficacy equivalent to that of the recommended starting dose of oxaprozin, 1200 mg/d, in relieving the symptoms of OA. Thus nabumetone may require dosage titration from the recommended starting dose. Oxaprozin and nabumetone were found to have similar tolerability profiles, as shown by adverse-event monitoring and withdrawal rates, as well as clinically similar safety profiles, as demonstrated by physical examinations, hematologic and biochemical laboratory testing, hemoccult testing, and adverse-event monitoring and symptom assessment.

Adult↗