- First Online:
Piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin is a complex of the established nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) piroxicam and an inert cyclic macromolecule, β-cyclodextrin. In clinical trials in patients with rheumatic diseases or pain arising from other conditions, it was as effective an analgesic as standard piroxicam, and showed a faster onset of action on the first day of treatment.
In short term pharmacodynamic studies in healthy volunteers, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin was equivalent to or tended to show less gastrointestinal mucosal toxicity than standard piroxicam, as assessed by endoscopy and faecal blood loss. However, no data are available on its comparative gastrointestinal mucosal effects from long term clinical trials using similar measures. Preliminary findings from a clinical study suggest piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin caused fewer gas-troduodenal lesions than tenoxicam. As with other NSAIDs, the majority of adverse events associated with piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin in clinical trials were gastrointestinal in origin, with epigastric pain, heartburn and nausea the most common.
Thus, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin is an effective agent in patients with rheumatic diseases or other pain states. When rapid analgesia is required in the initial treatment of acute pain, the faster onset of action of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin may be an advantage over the parent compound; however, this is unlikely to be important during long term therapy. The results of further long term trials are awaited before firm conclusions can be reached regarding the gastrointestinal tolerability of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin compared with that of standard piroxicam and other NSAIDs.
Piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin is a NSAID with anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic properties. Limited data available on the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin suggest that it is equivalent to piroxicam in animal and human models of pain. The effects of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin on the gastrointestinal mucosa have been more extensively studied.
Findings from endoscopy and faecal blood loss studies suggest that piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin is equivalent to, or shows a trend to be less toxic than, the parent molecule in healthy volunteers aged 20 to 50 years. However, none of these trends reached statistical significance.
In these studies, total endoscopy scores were similar for both drugs. In 2 studies of 1 month’s duration, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20 mg/day tended to cause less cumulative faecal blood loss than piroxicam 20 mg/day after 2 to 4 weeks’ treatment. In all studies piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin showed a trend towards greater gastric mucosal damage, or significantly more damage, than placebo.
Administration of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin as a single dose in fasting volunteers resulted in mean plasma piroxicam concentrations 0.25 and 0.5 hours after administration that were, respectively, 3 to 10 and 1.3 to 3 times higher than after standard piroxicam administration in 2 comparative studies.
Although food slowed the absorption from both products, plasma concentrations of piroxicam were still 2 to 4 and 1.3 to 1.4 times higher 0.5 and 2 hours after administration of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin than after standard piroxicam. However, after multiple-dose administration the only difference was at 0.25 hours after administration, when the plasma concentration of piroxicam was 1.3 times higher after piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin than piroxicam. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve was similar for piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20mg and Piroxicam 20mg, demonstrating a comparable overall extent of absorption.
Post-absorption pharmacokinetic parameters were similar for piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin and piroxicam. The volume of distribution was 0.14 L/kg and the mean terminal elimination half-life was 40 to 63 hours. The main route of elimination of piroxicam is metabolism, with only trace amounts of unchanged drug excreted in the urine.
In patients with acute pain resulting from arthritis and other rheumatic disease, the analgesic efficacy of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin was equivalent to that of piroxicam when both were administered once daily at a dose of 20mg for up to 12 weeks. Anti-inflammatory effects of the 2 agents were also equivalent in the study that assessed this. In 2 studies measuring the onset of analgesic effect, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin was significantly more effective, or showed a trend towards greater efficacy, than piroxicam in the 4 hours after the first dose. In a further 2 studies the analgesic effects of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin and piroxicam on the second or third day of administration were similar.
In other comparative studies in patients with rheumatic pain, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20 mg/day was superior in analgesic efficacy to dipyrone 500mg 3 times daily, at least as effective as etodolac 200mg twice daily, and equivalent in efficacy to tenoxicam 20 mg/day and nabumetone 1000 mg/day. In studies also investigating the onset of analgesia in the first few hours after the first dose, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20mg appeared to show a faster onset of action than tenoxicam 20mg, nabumetone 1000mg, etodolac 200mg and dipyrone 500mg. Orally administered piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20mg as a granule formulation was equivalent in analgesic effect over 12 hours to diclofenac 75mg and ketoprofen 100mg, both administered by deep intramuscular injection.
In patients with postoperative pain or pain arising from acute musculoskeletal disorders, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20 mg/day was equivalent to piroxicam 20 mg/day in relieving pain but the onset of its effect was generally faster in the first hour after the first dose. Piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin has also demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of pain arising from primary dysmenorrhoea, headache or dental extraction.
Piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin would be expected to demonstrate a tolerability profile similar to that of standard piroxicam. However, it has been postulated that reducing the time piroxicam spends in the gastrointestinal tract by complexation with β-cyclodextrin may result in less direct mucosal damage and hence better gastrointestinal tolerability. Short term studies in healthy volunteers suggest a possible trend towards less gastrointestinal toxicity for piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin, but this hypothesis has not been adequately studied in clinical trials. Long term studies comparing piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin with piroxicam in terms of endoscopy score and/or faecal blood loss measurement are awaited.
Data from clinical trials indicate that the principal adverse events involve the gastrointestinal tract. In 2 large short term phase IV studies, 11.3 and 13.5% of patients receiving piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20 mg/day reported an adverse event; 67 and 77% of these were gastrointestinal in origin, including epigastric pain, heartburn and nausea. Severe adverse reactions such as gastrointestinal bleeding or gastroduodenal ulcer were seen in 0.2% of 9105 patients. The pattern of adverse events from a longer term trial (3 to 6 months) was broadly similar.
In a double-blind comparative trial in 203 patients with rheumatic disease, the number of gastrointestinal adverse events in piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin recipients was 16 and that in piroxicam recipients was 24; 5 and 8 patients, respectively, withdrew because of the adverse event. In 1 study, piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin 20 mg/day caused fewer upper gastrointestinal tract lesions than tenoxicam 20 mg/day over 8 weeks.
Dosage and Administration
For the treatment of pain and inflammation, the recommended dosage of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin is 20mg administered once daily as a tablet or granules. Higher dosages of 30 to 40 mg/day may be required in some patients, but these are expected to be associated with a greater incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects. A maintenance dosage of 10 mg/day may be appropriate in some patients, particularly the elderly.
As with other NSAIDs, the use of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin is contraindicated in patients with active peptic ulceration, and the drug should be used cautiously in patients with a history of upper gastrointestinal tract disease.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.Cadel S, Bongrani S. β-Cyclodextrin complexation improves absorption and gastric tolerability of piroxicam [abstract]. Acta Physiol Hung 1990; 75 Suppl: 45-6Google Scholar
- 7.Lister RE, Acerbi D, Cadel S. Supermolecular inclusion of piroxicam with β-cyclodextrin: a review of its pharmacological properties in laboratory animals. Eur J Rheumatol Inflamm 1993; 12(4):6-11Google Scholar
- 8.Dolci G, Gatto R, Malagnino V. Effetto analgesico piroxicam-β-cyclodestrina sul dolore dentale indotto. Studio controllato in doppio cieco. Odontostomatol Implantoprotesi 1989 (1 Suppl.): 3-6Google Scholar
- 11.Hayllar J, Macpherson A, Bjarnason I. Gastroprotection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Rationale and clinical implications. Drug Saf 1992; 7: 86–105Google Scholar
- 15.Nervetti A, Ambanelli U, Ugolotti G. Assessment of gastric mucosal damage by a new inclusion complex of piroxicam with β-cyclodextrin: a functional study by a scintigraphic method. J Drug Dev 1991; 4 Suppl.1: 39–42Google Scholar
- 20.Data on file, Creemers MCW, Van Riel PLCM, et al. Gastro-intestinal toxicity during non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs in ankylosing spondylitis: increased fecal blood loss, and evidence for gastric adaptation in a 48-week clinical trial. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A, 1993.Google Scholar
- 22.Abramson S, Weissmann G. The mechanism of action of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1989; 7 Suppl.3: 163–70Google Scholar
- 28.Piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin prescribing information. Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA, Parma, Italy, 1993.Google Scholar
- 33.Oral bioavailability of CHF1194, an inclusion complex of piroxicam and β-cyclodextrin, in healthy subjects under single dose and steady-state conditions [editorial]. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. In pressGoogle Scholar
- 34.Data on file, Biopharma S.A. Bioavailability comparison study of CHF1194 fast-disintegration tablets and Feldene capsules (20mg piroxicam) in 12 healthy volunteers. Study reference 88.129. Data on file. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A, Italy, 1988.Google Scholar
- 35.Michelacci M, Boscarino G, Acerbi D, et al. Analgesic effect and pharmacokinetics of a piroxicam beta-cyclodextrin oral formulation in post-surgical pain. A controlled study vs. an injectable piroxicam formulation. Clin Trials J 1990; 27 (3): 176–86Google Scholar
- 38.Bufalino L, Oliani C, Gardini F, et al. Studio multicentrico sugli effetti di piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel trattamento delgi stati dolorosi acuti a diversa etiologia. Basi Raz Ter 1990; 20: 227–39Google Scholar
- 39.Ambanelli U, Nervetti A, Colombo B, et al. Piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin in the treatment of rheumatic diseases: a prospective study. Curr Ther Res 1990; 48: 58–68Google Scholar
- 40.Giungi F. Tollerabilità ed efficacia di un trattamento a base di piroxicam beta-ciclodestrina in patologie osteoartrosiche con elevata risposta algica studio controllato contro piroxicam. Med Praxis 1987; 8 (2): 1–12Google Scholar
- 41.Manzini CU, Mascia MT, Oliani C, et al. Analgesic activity of piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin complex (granulate formulation) in the treatment of osteoarthritic pain [in Italian]. Arch Med Interna 1989; 41: 189–99Google Scholar
- 43.Reginster JY, Franchimont P. Piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin in the treatment of acute pain of rheumatic disease. Eur J Rheumatol Inflamm 1990; 12 (4): 38–46Google Scholar
- 44.Data on file, Nardelli P, Marino G, et al. Piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin in the treatment of rheumatic pain. A controlled trial vs piroxicam capsules. Data on file. Cheisi Farmacuetici S.p.A, 1990.Google Scholar
- 45.Abate G, Zito M, Guarino F, et al. Il dolore osteoartritico: terapia con oxicam-derivati. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 1990; 12: 273–81Google Scholar
- 47.Ghirardini M, Betelemme L, Fatti F. Studio di confronto tra droxicam e β-ciclodestrina-piroxicam nel trattamento dell’osteoartrosi e del reumatismo extra-articolare. Reumatologo 1993; 14: 145–7Google Scholar
- 48.Casale G, Oricchio P, Alfonsi A. Attività antalgica del complesso β-ciclodestrina-Piroxicam nelle forme croniche. Arch Med Interna 1991; 43: 157–64Google Scholar
- 49.Davoli L, Ciotti G, Biondi M, et al. Piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin in the treatment of low-back pain. Curr Ther Res 1989; 46: 940–7Google Scholar
- 50.Gospodinoff A, Minisola G. β-Ciclodestrina-piroxicam vs meclofenamato sódico nel dolore osteoartrosico. Algos 1990; 7 (4): 49–55Google Scholar
- 51.La Montagna G, Parenti M, Oliani C, et al. Beta-ciclodestrina-piroxicam nel trattamento delle fasi attive della patologia osteoartrosica. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 1990; 12: 265–72Google Scholar
- 52.Portioli RI, Casoli P, Tumiati B. II complesso piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel trattamento dell’osteoartrosi e del reumatismo extra-articolare: studio clinico controllato. Reumatologo 1989; 10: 104–7Google Scholar
- 53.Riccieri V, Spadaro A, Zoppini A. Utilizzo del complesso beta-ciclodestrina piroxicam nella patologia osteoartrosica: studio controllato vs diclofenac sódico. Arch Med Interna 1990; 42: 189–99Google Scholar
- 54.Rossetti A, Musiari L, Bonati PL, et al. Trattamento del dolore osteoartrosico con PBC. Studio clinico controllato verso metamizolo. Algos 1988; 5 (4): 30–5Google Scholar
- 55.Tamburro P, Galasso G. Studio clinico controllato sull’effetto antalgico del complesso piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel dolore acuto muscolo-scheletrico e/o articulare. Reumatologo 1989; 10: 237–41Google Scholar
- 56.Simone C, Oliani C. Beta-cyclodextrin-piroxicam: efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of pain after bone and joint surgery. Curr Ther Res 1990; 47: 541–7Google Scholar
- 57.Zezza AR, Cosco Mazzuca R, Giuntini C, et al. Valutazione dell’effetto analgesico del piroxicam-betaciclodestrina per os nel trattamento del dolore traumatologico e post-operatorio in ortopedia. Studio controllato vs piroxicam iniettabile. Orto-ped Traumatol Oggi 1988; 8: 255–61Google Scholar
- 58.Di Matteo L, Fratelli V, Oliani C, et al. Shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis: efficacy and tolerability of piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin complex [in Italian]. Arch Med Interna 1989; 41: 261–72Google Scholar
- 59.Galasso G, Tamburro P, Vecchiet L. Analgesic activity of beta-cyclodextrin-piroxicam and tenoxicam in acute soft tissue injuries. Adv Ther 1990; 7: 43–50Google Scholar
- 60.Tamburro P, Galasso G. Efficacia e tollerabilità del piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel trattamento del dolore muscolo-scheletrico. Reumatologo 1989; 10: 104–7Google Scholar
- 61.Tamburro P, Galasso G. A controlled trial of β-cyclodextrin-piroxicam versus tiaprofenic acid in the treatment of painful states from inflammation or trauma of periarticular soft-tissues [in Italian]. Arch Med Interna 1990; 42: 73–82Google Scholar
- 62.Zarotti F, Boscarino G, Serra G, et al. Trattamento del dolore muscolo-scheletrico a diversa etiologia con complesso piroxicam beta-ciclodestrina. Ortoped Traumatol Oggi 1988; 8: 305–12Google Scholar
- 63.Costa S, Mioli M, Ravaioli R, et al. Prostaglandin synthetase inhibitor piroxicam beta-cyclodextrin in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Curr Ther Res 1987; 42: 156–64Google Scholar
- 64.Data on file, Di Renzo GC, Gori F, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Report 20.00/CT/01/90. Data on file. Cheisi Farmaceutici S.p.A, 1990.Google Scholar
- 65.Gualdi F, Pagliani A, Dessanti L, et al. Trattamento della dismenorrea primaria con il complesso piroxicam-betaciclodestrina. Giorn It Ost Gin 1989; 11: 77–82Google Scholar
- 66.Zinelli G, Dessanti L, Ventura A, et al. It trattamento farmacológico della dismenorrea primaria: studio clinico controllato con piroxicam beta-ciclodestrina. Giorn It Ost Gin 1986; 8: 679–87Google Scholar
- 67.Bruno E, Porcellini A, Farronato GP, et al. Il dolore post-es-trattivo, trattamento analgesico con piroxicam. Dental Cadmos 1987; 14: 61–8Google Scholar
- 68.Data on file, Umile A, Monici Preti PA, et al. Double-blind parallel comparison of single oral doses of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin, piroxicam, paracetamol and placebo with moderate to severe pain following oral surgery (3rd molar extraction). Clinical trial no. 20.00/CT/06/91. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., 1993.Google Scholar
- 70.Marcucci M, Panelli G, Cambini S. Clinical experience in the treatment of dental pain. Clin J Pain 1991; 7 Suppl. 1: S72-6Google Scholar
- 71.Giacovazzo M, Martelletti P, Zaurito V, et al. Effetto antalgico acuto del complesso piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel trattamento della cefalea. G Neuropsicofarmacol 1989; 11: 31–55Google Scholar
- 72.Giacovazzo M, Martelletti P, Zaurito V. Piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel trattamento della cefalea: effetto antalgico acuto e prevenzione dell’insorgenza delle crisi cefalalgiche. G Neuropsicofarmacol 1990; 12: 27–33Google Scholar
- 73.Granella F, Dadatti A, Bizzi P, et al. Trattamento dell’emicrania comune con il complesso piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina. G Neuropsicofarmacol 1989; 11: 253–8Google Scholar
- 74.Micieli C, Iannacchero R, Tassorelli C, et al. Effetto antalgico del complesso piroxicam-beta-ciclodestrina nel trattamento dell’emicrania comune. G Neuropsicofarmacol 1989; 11: 170–3Google Scholar
- 75.Lemmel EM. Gastrointestinal tolerability of piroxicam-β-cyclodextrin in the treatment of painful joint and spine complaints due to osteoarthritis or inflammatory rheumatism [abstract no. V9]. Klinische Pharmakologie aktuell 1993 (2): 39Google Scholar
- 76.Data on file, Dreiser RL, Umile A, et al. Piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin in the treatment of rheumatic disease. A multicentric, long-term (6 months), open study in Belgium, France and The Netherlands. Clinical trial no. 20.00/CT/09/90. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A. 1993.Google Scholar
- 77.Piroxicam prescribing information. Pfizer Ltd, UK, 1993.Google Scholar
- 78.Del Favero A. Anti-inflammatory analgesics and drugs used in rheumatiod arthritis and gout. In: Dukes MNG, Beeley L, editors. Side effects of drugs annual, v. 12. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1988: 91-100Google Scholar
- 85.Hawkey CJ. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcers. Facts and figures multiply but do they add up. BMJ 1990; 300: 278–84Google Scholar