Patient Global Assessment Of Response To Therapy Research Articles

Efficacy and safety of twice daily sustained-release paracetamol formulation for osteoarthritis pain of the knee or hip: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, twelve-week study

Objective: Evaluate efficacy and safety of an investigational, twice daily sustained-release (SR) paracetamol formulation in subjects with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel study (NCT02311881), subjects with hip or knee OA were randomly assigned to SR paracetamol 2 × 1000 mg BID, extended-release (ER) paracetamol 2 × 665 mg TID or placebo for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline through 12 weeks in WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index pain. Secondary efficacy endpoints included other WOMAC categories, Global Patient Assessment of Osteoarthritis (GPAOA), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and responder rate.Results: A total of 676 subjects were included in the analysis population (mITT). Mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale was not significantly greater with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo (LS mean [SE]: −28.25 [1.697] vs. −25.74 [1.713]; p = .163). Reduction in WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscales with SR paracetamol BID was not significantly greater than with placebo (p = .089 and .054, respectively). Significant improvement over placebo was observed for GPAOA (p = .043), PGART (p = .012), and proportion of high-improvement responders (p = .015). Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of paracetamol.Conclusions: Improvement in WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscales from treatment with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo in subjects with knee or hip OA was not significant. SR paracetamol BID demonstrated significant improvements in GPAOA, PGART, and high-responder rate. High placebo response may have contributed to lack of statistical separation on some outcomes. All interventions were generally well tolerated.

Comparison of the short-term effects of the conventional motorized traction with non-surgical spinal decompression performed with a DRX9000 device on pain, functionality, depression, and quality of life in patients with low back pain associated with lumbar disc herniation: A single-blind randomized-controlled trial.

This study aims to compare the efficiency of conventional motorized traction (CMT) with non-surgical spinal decompression (NSD) using the DRX9000™ device in patients with low back pain associated with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Between March 2009 and September 2009, a total of 48 patients (29 females, 19 males; mean age 43.1±9.8 years; range, 18 to 65 years) were randomized into two groups. The first group (n=24) underwent CMT and the second group (n=24) underwent NSD for a total of 20 sessions over six weeks. The patients were evaluated before and after the treatment. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), functional status using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), quality of life using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), state of depression mood using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the global assessment of the illness using the Patient's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Investigator's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (IGART) scales. There was no significant difference in the evaluation outcomes before the treatment between the groups. However, a statistically significant decline was found in the VAS, ODI, and BDI scores after the treatment in both groups (all p<0.001). Except for two subgroups, no significant changes were observed in the SF-36 form. Assessment of "marked improvement" was globally most frequently reported one in both groups. No significant difference was observed in the evaluation outcomes after treatment between the groups. Our study results show that both CMT and NSD are effective methods in pain management and functional status and depressive mood improvement in patients with LDH, and NSD is not superior to CMT in terms of pain, functionality, depression and quality of life.

Sensitivity of Single-domain Versus Multiple-domain Outcome Measures to Identify Responders in Chronic Low-back Pain

A composite responder index for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) has recently been proposed to evaluate the efficacy of CLBP treatments in clinical trials. We compared the responsiveness of this composite measure with a number of single-item responder definitions. We pooled data from 2 placebo-controlled studies of etoricoxib in CLBP to evaluate 5 response criteria: 30% pain intensity (PI) reduction; 50% PI reduction; 20 mm absolute reduction (100 mm PI visual analog scale); patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART); and the composite criteria of 30% reduction in PI+30% improvement in PGART of disease status+no worsening in function. We used bootstrap analysis and logistic regression to assess the ability to differentiate etoricoxib and placebo, and the κ coefficient to assess agreement among the responder criteria. The criterion of a 20 mm improvement in PI resulted in the greatest proportion (71.5%) of patients being classified as responders and all criteria separated etoricoxib from placebo (P≤0.0001). PGART had the highest discriminant ability (odds ratio 5.90), and was significantly (P<0.05) more discriminant than the 20 mm and ≥30% improvements and the composite criteria. After adjusting for all other measures, only PGART continued to show a significant treatment effect for etoricoxib versus placebo (P=0.0003). Kappa values contrasting the composite criteria and the single-item measures ranged from 0.59 to 0.85. These findings do not support the superiority of a composite index over single-item ratings of PI and PGART ratings, but do suggest that PGART ratings may be more responsive to treatment, perhaps because they measure something in addition to change in PI.

(214) Rofecoxib Provides Superior Relief of Pain in Osteoarthritis (OA) Compared to Celecoxib

We performed a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial to evaluate pain relief efficacy of rofecoxib and celecoxib at highest indicated once daily doses in osteoarthritis. 1082 patients meeting entry criteria for OA, responsive to NSAIDs, were randomized 3:3:1 to treatment with rofecoxib 25 mg QD (n = 471), celecoxib 200 mg QD (n = 460) or placebo (n = 151). Efficacy was assessed over the first 6 days of therapy and at weeks 2, 4 and 6 by WOMAC questionnaire and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Demographics were well balanced. Significantly more patients on placebo discontinued prematurely compared to both active groups (p < 0.001) mainly due to lack of pain relief efficacy. Rofecoxib provided statistically superior relief of night pain (p = 0.023), morning stiffness (p = 0.002), rest pain (p = 0.023), and walking pain (p = 0.005) compared to celecoxib. Rofecoxib was significantly superior to celecoxib on all WOMAC subscales including pain (p = 0.008), stiffness (p = 0.001) and physical function (p = 0.01). Rofecoxib was superior to celecoxib in % of patients with good or excellent PGART over 6 weeks (p = 0.014) and provided quicker onset of pain relief as assessed by time to first report of good or excellent response (p < 0.001). Both active groups were superior to placebo on efficacy endpoints. Incidence of clinical AEs, drug related AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs was similar between active groups. In this study, once daily doses of rofecoxib provided superior relief of pain and other related symptoms in OA compared to celecoxib and placebo. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Rofecoxib 12.5 mg, rofecoxib 25 mg, and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis: results of two similarly designed studies

ABSTRACTObjective: To compare the efficacy of rofecoxib and celecoxib for the treatment of knee or hip OA over 6 weeks.Methods: Two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomly assigned 3:3:3:1 in Study 1 to once daily (QD) rofecoxib 12.5 mg (N = 456), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 459), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 456), or placebo (N = 150) and 3:3:1 in Study 2 to QD rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 471), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 460), or placebo (N = 151). There was no rofecoxib 12.5 mg arm in Study 2. The primary outcome measure of both studies was pain at night over 6 weeks for rofecoxib 25 mg vs. celecoxib 200 mg. Efficacy comparisons with rofecoxib 12.5 mg in Study 1 were included as pre-specified study objectives but not as pre-specified study hypotheses. Secondary endpoints included Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks and over 1 week. Safety was evaluated through the assessment of spontaneously reported adverse experiences (AEs), evaluation of vital signs, and laboratory data reported by investigators and patients.Results: For the primary endpoint, reduction in pain at night over 6 weeks in Study 1 was not significantly different between active treatments; in Study 2 rofecoxib 25 mg significantly ( p = 0.023) reduced pain at night compared with celecoxib 200 mg over 6 weeks. For the secondary endpoints, in both studies, significantly ( p < 0.05) more patients treated with rofecoxib 25 mg than celecoxib 200 mg had a good or excellent PGART over 6 weeks, and over the first week ( p < 0.01). In both studies, there were no significant differences between active medications in the incidence of reported overall, serious, or drug-related AEs. The reported AE rates with the active treatments were generally similar to those with placebo in the two studies.Conclusions: Rofecoxib 25 mg was significantly better than celecoxib 200 mg in relieving night pain at 6 weeks in one study; this was not confirmed in the accompanying study.

A randomized controlled trial of deep water running: Clinical effectiveness of aquatic exercise to treat fibromyalgia

To compare the clinical effectiveness of aerobic exercise in the water with walking/jogging for women with fibromyalgia (FM). Sixty sedentary women with FM, ages 18-60 years, were randomly assigned to either deep water running (DWR) or land-based exercises (LBE). Patients were trained for 15 weeks at their anaerobic threshold. Visual analog scale of pain, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Beck Depression Inventory, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and a patient's global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) were measured at baseline, week 8, and week 15. Statistical analysis included all patients. Four patients dropped out from each group. Both groups improved significantly at week 15 compared with baseline, with an average 36% reduction in pain intensity. For PGART, 40% of the DWR group and 30% of the LBE group answered "much better" at posttreatment. FIQ total score and FIQ depression improvements in the DWR group were faster (week 8) than the LBE group and kept improving (week 15; P < 0.05). Only the DWR group showed improvements in SF-36 role emotional (P = 0.006). No significant between-group differences were observed for peak oxygen uptake and other outcomes. DWR is a safe exercise that has been shown to be as effective as LBE regarding pain. However, it has been shown to bring more advantages related to emotional aspects. Aerobic gain was similar for both groups, regardless of symptom improvement. Therefore, DWR could be studied as an exercise option for patients with FM who have problems adapting to LBE or lower limbs limitations.

Treatment of Patients With Osteoarthritis With Rofecoxib Compared With Nabumetone

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. The objective of this study was to compare rofecoxib and nabumetone, at their lower, recommended doses, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). 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. 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. 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.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in two similarly designed osteoarthritis studies

ABSTRACTObjective: To compare the lower osteoarthritis (OA) dose of rofecoxib to the recommended dose of celecoxib in two identically designed studies.Methods: Patients with knee OA were randomized (2:2:1 ratio: rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily (qd), celecoxib 200 mg qd, or placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) averaged over 6 weeks on a five-point scale. Rofecoxib would be declared at least as effective as celecoxib if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for difference in means was no lower than –0.5. Additional endpoints included Pain and Physical Function subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) OA Index. Adverse experiences (AEs) were recorded and combined from the two studies for analysis.Results: Study 1 enrolled 395 patients (rofecoxib, n = 160; celecoxib, n = 157; placebo, n = 78). Study 2 enrolled 413 patients (rofecoxib, n = 159; celecoxib, n = 169; placebo, n = 85). Rofecoxib 12.5 mg was at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg by PGART (Study 1 difference –0.09 [95% CI: –0.32, 0.14] and Study 2 difference 0.02 [95% CI: –0.20, 0.24]), and both were significantly ( p < 0.001) more effective than placebo. Comparable efficacy was also seen for WOMAC Pain and Physical Function subscales with the active treatments. There was a significantly higher ( p < 0.05) incidence of serious AEs with celecoxib than rofecoxib or placebo, none of which was drug-related. There were no significant differences in the pre-specified measurements of safety including drug-related AEs or discontinuations due to AEs, and the medications demonstrated similar safety as assessed by spontaneous reporting.Conclusions: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg provided comparable efficacy over 6 weeks, and both were significantly more efficacious than placebo. The medications demonstrated similar safety compared to one another and placebo. The primary limitations of these studies were that they were only 6 weeks long and were powered for efficacy. Therefore, conclusions about long-term safety cannot be inferred.

Efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day in reduction of pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a 4‐week, multinational, randomized, double-blind study

ABSTRACTBackground and methods: The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 60 mg/day in patients with established chronic low back pain (CLBP) were compared with those of diclofenac 150 mg/day in a 4‐week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Four hundred and forty-six adult patients with CLBP (Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders Class 1 or 2) and with worsening pain upon discontinuation of pre-study analgesic medication were enrolled in the study.The study primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in Low Back Pain Intensity Scale (LBP‐IS) score over the 4‐week treatment period. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints included: changes in Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale (LBP-BS) scores. Early efficacy was assessed using PGART and LBP‐IS scores 4 h after the first dose on the mornings of Days 1, 2 and 3. The overall safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 60 mg/day during 4 weeks of treatment were also assessed.Results: The least-squares mean time-weighted change from baseline LBP‐IS score over 4 weeks was –32.94 mm (95% CI –36.25, –29.63) for etoricoxib, indicating substantial efficacy in relief of pain. The treatment difference for the primary outcome was 2.51 mm (95% CI –1.50, 6.51), fulfilling the prespecified equivalence criterion of 95% confidence interval wholly within ± 10 mm. Etoricoxib improved all secondary and other efficacy outcomes.There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients with one or more clinical adverse events (AEs) (etoricoxib 35%, diclofenac 39%), or the proportion of patients who discontinued due to AEs (etoricoxib 7%, diclofenac 5%).Conclusions: The results of this study confirm that, for adult patients with CLBP, etoricoxib 60 mg once daily over 4 weeks is effective for relief of pain and improvement of physical function and comparable to high-dose diclofenac 150 mg daily.

Comparison of rofecoxib and a multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen regimen for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial

SUMMARYObjective: To compare the efficacy of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h as well as with a multidose regimen of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg followed by oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg over 24 h.Research design and methods: In this double-blind, randomized, two-phase study, patients with moderate to severe pain after surgical extraction of ≥ 2 third molars, including one mandibular impaction, were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg (single-dose phase) followed by 5/325 mg every 6 h as needed (multidose phase), or placebo. Patients rated their pain relief and intensity at 18 time points over 24 h. Efficacy was measured over 6 and 24 h by total pain relief (TOPAR), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID), and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Primary endpoint for the single dose comparison was TOPAR over 6 h; SPID was the key 24-h endpoint. Onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic effect, and duration of analgesic effect were also evaluated. Adverse experiences were recorded.Results: 271 patients were randomized to treatment with rofecoxib (n = 121), oxycodone/acetaminophen (n = 120), or placebo (n = 30). For the single dose comparison, rofecoxib-treated patients achieved pain relief at least as effective as oxycodone/acetaminophen-treated patients as assessed by TOPAR6 (12.9 vs 11.3, 95% CI on difference = [–0.1, 3.2], p = 0.059). Patients also rated a single dose of rofecoxib as at least as effective as multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h on SPID24 (21.9 vs 18.1, 95% CI on difference = [–1.0, 8.8], p = 0.122). Patients treated with oxycodone/acetaminophen had a shorter time to onset of analgesia than patients treated with rofecoxib (24 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). Patients in the active treatment groups achieved similar peak effects during the single-dose phase. Individuals treated with rofecoxib demonstrated a longer duration of analgesic effect than those treated with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen. Patients on active treatment demonstrated better efficacy than patients on placebo on these prespecified endpoints ( p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Fewer rofecoxib than oxycodone/acetaminophen patients experienced adverse events (47.9 vs 75.8%, p < 0.001), including nausea (19.0 vs 42.5%, p < 0.001), vomiting (9.9 vs 24.2%, p < 0.01), and dizziness (7.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Patients treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg achieved an overall analgesic effect at least as effective as patients treated with a single-dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h and multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h, with fewer adverse experiences of nausea ( p < 0.001), vomiting ( p < 0.01), and dizziness ( p < 0.001).

Efficacy and Safety of Rofecoxib 12.5 mg Versus Nabumetone 1,000 mg in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Randomized Controlled Trial

To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated.

A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis

SUMMARYObjective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.Methods: In this 6-week double-blind, active comparator controlled, parallel-group study eligible osteoarthritis patients were randomised to receive either etoricoxib 60 mg once daily (n = 256) or diclofenac 50 mg three times daily (n = 260). The primary study endpoint was the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Other endpoints included were the WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscales, and the Patient's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) questionnaire. Early efficacy was evaluated using WOMAC first question (pain walking on a flat surface) and PGART 4 h after the morning dose of each drug ondays 1 and 2. Rescue medication (paracetamol) used was also recorded. The study was designed to show comparable efficacy between etoricoxib 60 mg once daily and diclofenac 50 mg three times daily with respect to the primary endpoint and was conducted outside the United States at 67 centres in 29 countries.Results: Etoricoxib (60 mg once daily) was comparable in efficacy to diclofenac (150 mg daily) on all the above parameters. The one exception was in the assessment of early efficacy where etoricoxib demonstrated significantly greater benefit within 4 h of taking the first dose on the first day of therapy (p = 0.007) as evaluated by the percentage of patients with good or excellent (PGART) responses. The treatment effects of both drugs were similar by the time day 2 was reachedand were sustained throughout the 6 weeks of therapy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.Conclusions: Etoricoxib is clinically effective in the therapy of osteoarthritis providing a magnitude of effect comparable to that of the maximum recommended daily dose of diclofenac. The onset of clinical benefit with etoricoxib on day one is more rapid than that of diclofenac. Both drugs were generally well tolerated.

Rofecoxib versus codeine/acetaminophen in postoperative dental pain: a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active comparator—controlled clinical trial

Background: In recent studies of acute pain and primary dysmenorrhea, rofecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that selectively targets the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme, was found to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy of a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with the combination of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg in a model of postsurgical dental pain. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator—controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after the surgical extraction of ≥2 third molars, at least 1 of which was a mandibular impaction, were randomized to receive placebo, rofecoxib 50 mg, or codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg. Patient evaluations of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments were recorded throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The 2-stopwatch method was used to determine time to confirmed perceptible pain relief. The primary end point assessing overall analgesic effect was total pain relief over 6 hours (TOPAR6). Secondary end points were patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) at 6 hours, onset of analgesia, peak analgesic effect, and duration of analgesia. Results: A total of 393 patients were enrolled; 182 received rofecoxib, 180 received codeine/acetaminophen, and 31 received placebo. The overall analgesic effect of rofecoxib 50 mg was greater than that of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg for TOPAR6 (12.4 vs 7.0; P < 0.001) and PGART at 6 hours ( P < 0.001). The onset of analgesic effect was similar for rofecoxib and codeine/acetaminophen. Peak analgesic effect as measured by peak pain relief scores during the first 6 hours was significantly greater in the rofecoxib group compared with the codeine/acetaminophen group ( P < 0.001), as was the duration of analgesic effect measured by the time to rescue analgesia (9.6 hours vs 2.3 hours, P < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 33.0%, 46.1%, and 32.3% of patients treated with rofecoxib, codeine/acetaminophen, and placebo, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (6.0%, 25.0%, and 9.7%, respectively) and vomiting (3.8%, 18.3%, and 6.5%, respectively). Significantly more patients in the codeine/acetaminophen group than in the rofecoxib group experienced adverse events overall ( P < 0.050) and nausea in particular ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: In this study of moderate to severe postoperative dental pain, the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was greater than that of codeine/acetaminophen, with a lower incidence of adverse events and nausea.