Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 20;180(9):1–9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821

Table 2. Primary and Secondary Analysis Results.

Outcome Placebo Meloxicam Adjusted difference, placebo minus meloxicam
Participants with available outcome data, No. LS mean (SE) value Participants with available outcome data, No. LS mean (SE) value Mean (95% CI) P value
Primary analysis
WOMAC knee pain at week 4 (possible range, 0-20)a 152 8.0 (0.2) 169 6.6 (0.2) 1.4 (0.8 to 2.0) .92b
Secondary analyses
WOMAC knee pain
At week 14a 140 6.9 (0.2) 146 6.0 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2 to 1.4) .28b
In final weekc 176 6.6 (0.3) 179 6.1 (0.3) 0.6 (−0.1 to 1.3) .12b
Time-averaged AUCd
Weeks 1-4 167 7.7 (0.2) 173 6.7 (0.2) 1.1 (0.5 to 1.6) <.001e
Over all weeks 175 7.5 (0.2) 179 6.4 (0.2) 1.1 (0.5 to 1.6) <.001e
Global impression of change in final week (possible range, 1-5)f,g 160 2.1 (0.1) 176 2.3 (0.1) −0.2 (−0.4 to 0.1) .15e
WOMAC function in final week (possible range, 0-68)g 160 19.7 (0.9) 176 18.8 (0.9) 0.9 (−1.4 to 3.2) .45e

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; LS, least-squares; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

a

Results for the first 2 outcomes (WOMAC knee pain at week 4 and 14) were obtained from a linear mixed model. The model included all participants with at least 1 postrandomization pain score (176 placebo and 179 meloxicam). Results for the other outcomes were obtained from linear regression models. All models were adjusted for the stratification variables (baseline WOMAC knee pain score and site).

b

Noninferiority (1-sided); P < .03.

c

Last observation carried forward.

d

Time-averaged AUC = AUC divided by the length of follow-up in weeks.

e

Difference (2-sided); P < .05.

f

Global impression of change range: 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse.

g

Final week (≥12 for all participants).