-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
Paediatric Drugs Nov 2022Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in infants, children, and adolescents worldwide; however, despite sufficient evidence of the beneficial... (Review)
Review
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in infants, children, and adolescents worldwide; however, despite sufficient evidence of the beneficial effects of NSAIDs in children and adolescents, there is a lack of comprehensive data in infants. The present review summarizes the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of various NSAIDs used in infants for which data are available, and includes ibuprofen, dexibuprofen, ketoprofen, flurbiprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketorolac, indomethacin, niflumic acid, meloxicam, celecoxib, parecoxib, rofecoxib, acetylsalicylic acid, and nimesulide. The efficacy of NSAIDs has been documented for a variety of conditions, such as fever and pain. NSAIDs are also the main pillars of anti-inflammatory treatment, such as in pediatric inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Limited data are available on the safety of most NSAIDs in infants. Adverse drug reactions may be renal, gastrointestinal, hematological, or immunologic. Since NSAIDs are among the most frequently used drugs in the pediatric population, safety and efficacy studies can be performed as part of normal clinical routine, even in young infants. Available data sources, such as (electronic) medical records, should be used for safety and efficacy analyses. On a larger scale, existing data sources, e.g. adverse drug reaction programs/networks, spontaneous national reporting systems, and electronic medical records should be assessed with child-specific methods in order to detect safety signals pertinent to certain pediatric age groups or disease entities. To improve the safety of NSAIDs in infants, treatment needs to be initiated with the lowest age-appropriate or weight-based dose. Duration of treatment and amount of drug used should be regularly evaluated and maximum dose limits and other recommendations by the manufacturer or expert committees should be followed. Treatment for non-chronic conditions such as fever and acute (postoperative) pain should be kept as short as possible. Patients with chronic conditions should be regularly monitored for possible adverse effects of NSAIDs.
Topics: Adolescent; Infant; Child; Humans; Meloxicam; Naproxen; Celecoxib; Ibuprofen; Ketoprofen; Diclofenac; Ketorolac; Flurbiprofen; Niflumic Acid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Chronic Disease; Pain
PubMed: 36053397
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-022-00514-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition and imposes a substantial economic burden upon people living in industrialized societies. A large proportion of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition and imposes a substantial economic burden upon people living in industrialized societies. A large proportion of people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to September 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinical Trials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal and PubMed; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic non-specific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines which we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A library scientist with the Cochrane Back Review Group conducted the database searches. One review author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. We downloaded full references and abstracts of the identified studies and retrieved a hard copy of each study for final inclusion decisions. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared to assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (2050 participants) in this review. One trial on Solidago chilensis M. (Brazilian arnica) (20 participants) found very low quality evidence of reduction in perception of pain and improved flexibility with application of Brazilian arnica-containing gel twice daily as compared to placebo gel. Capsicum frutescens cream or plaster probably produces more favourable results than placebo in people with chronic LBP (three trials, 755 participants, moderate quality evidence). Based on current evidence, it is not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for treating people with acute LBP compared to placebo (one trial, 40 participants, low quality evidence). Another trial found equivalence of C. frutescens cream to a homeopathic ointment (one trial, 161 participants, very low quality evidence). Daily doses of Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside, may be better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and may reduce use of rescue medication (two trials, 315 participants, low quality evidence). Another H. procumbens trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx®) but was of very low quality (one trial, 88 participants, very low quality). Daily doses of Salix alba (white willow bark), standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin, are probably better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication (two trials, 261 participants, moderate quality evidence). An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (one trial, 228 participants) but was graded as very low quality evidence. S. alba minimally affected platelet thrombosis versus a cardioprotective dose of acetylsalicylate (one trial, 51 participants). One trial (120 participants) examining Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey root extract) found low quality evidence that a Kytta-Salbe comfrey extract ointment is better than placebo ointment for short-term improvements in pain as assessed by VAS. Aromatic lavender essential oil applied by acupressure may reduce subjective pain intensity and improve lateral spine flexion and walking time compared to untreated participants (one trial, 61 participants,very low quality evidence). No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
C. frutescens (Cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although H. procumbens, S. alba, S. officinale L., S. chilensis, and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Benzyl Alcohols; Capsicum; Chronic Pain; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Glucosides; Harpagophytum; Humans; Lactones; Low Back Pain; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salix; Sulfones
PubMed: 25536022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004504.pub4 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2016To investigate the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and estimate the risk of hospital admission for heart failure with use of...
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and estimate the risk of hospital admission for heart failure with use of individual NSAIDs.
DESIGN
Nested case-control study.
SETTING
Five population based healthcare databases from four European countries (the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom).
PARTICIPANTS
Adult individuals (age ≥18 years) who started NSAID treatment in 2000-10. Overall, 92 163 hospital admissions for heart failure were identified and matched with 8 246 403 controls (matched via risk set sampling according to age, sex, year of cohort entry).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Association between risk of hospital admission for heart failure and use of 27 individual NSAIDs, including 23 traditional NSAIDs and four selective COX 2 inhibitors. Associations were assessed by multivariable conditional logistic regression models. The dose-response relation between NSAID use and heart failure risk was also assessed.
RESULTS
Current use of any NSAID (use in preceding 14 days) was found to be associated with a 19% increase of risk of hospital admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.22), compared with past use of any NSAIDs (use >183 days in the past). Risk of admission for heart failure increased for seven traditional NSAIDs (diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and two COX 2 inhibitors (etoricoxib and rofecoxib). Odds ratios ranged from 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.27) for naproxen to 1.83 (1.66 to 2.02) for ketorolac. Risk of heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib, indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib used at very high doses (≥2 defined daily dose equivalents), although some confidence intervals were wide. Even medium doses (0.9-1.2 defined daily dose equivalents) of indomethacin and etoricoxib were associated with increased risk. There was no evidence that celecoxib increased the risk of admission for heart failure at commonly used doses.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of hospital admission for heart failure associated with current use of NSAIDs appears to vary between individual NSAIDs, and this effect is dose dependent. This risk is associated with the use of a large number of individual NSAIDs reported by this study, which could help to inform both clinicians and health regulators.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Case-Control Studies; Databases, Factual; Female; Germany; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Italy; Logistic Models; Male; Netherlands; Risk Factors; United Kingdom
PubMed: 27682515
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4857 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Mar 2015The objective of this systematic literature review was to determine the association between cardiovascular events (CVEs) and antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, methotrexate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids on cardiovascular events in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The objective of this systematic literature review was to determine the association between cardiovascular events (CVEs) and antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/psoriasis (Pso). Systematic searches were performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases (1960 to December 2012) and proceedings from major relevant congresses (2010-2012) for controlled studies and randomised trials reporting confirmed CVEs in patients with RA or PsA/Pso treated with antirheumatic drugs. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on extracted data. Out of 2630 references screened, 34 studies were included: 28 in RA and 6 in PsA/Pso. In RA, a reduced risk of all CVEs was reported with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (relative risk (RR), 0.70; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; p=0.005) and methotrexate (RR, 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; p=0.007). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increased the risk of all CVEs (RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; p=0.04), which may have been specifically related to the effects of rofecoxib. Corticosteroids increased the risk of all CVEs (RR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.60; p<0.001). In PsA/Pso, systemic therapy decreased the risk of all CVEs (RR, 0.75; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; p=0.003). In RA, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and methotrexate are associated with a decreased risk of all CVEs while corticosteroids and NSAIDs are associated with an increased risk. Targeting inflammation with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors or methotrexate may have positive cardiovascular effects in RA. In PsA/Pso, limited evidence suggests that systemic therapies are associated with a decrease in all CVE risk.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Methotrexate; Psoriasis; Risk Factors; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 25561362
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206624 -
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Jan 2020The period of time during which a patient is exposed to a drug does not necessarily correspond to the period during which the drug produces the adverse effect under... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The period of time during which a patient is exposed to a drug does not necessarily correspond to the period during which the drug produces the adverse effect under consideration. We propose the term Pharmacologically pertinent period of effect (PPPE) to address this time window. We explored the PPPE in light of the rofecoxib saga.
METHODS
We identified the observational database studies of rofecoxib at doses 25 and 50 mg daily and thromboembolic events. We also obtained the Kaplan-Meier curves of Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research trial (VIGOR) and Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx (APPROVE) trials.
RESULTS
We found seven observational studies with nine analyses. All the studies only looked at current exposure. At the dose of 25 mg, only three of nine analyses were barely statistically significant. At the dose of 50 mg, the risk ratios were much higher. The visual inspection of the Kaplan-Meier curves shows that in the APPROVE trial (25 mg), the placebo and rofecoxib curves start separating to become statistically significantly different only after 36 months. In contrast the VIGOR (50 mg), curves start separating very early and the divergence increases after 8 months.
DISCUSSION
The 50 mg observational studies, looking at current exposure, correctively identified the almost immediate increase in risk evident in the VIGOR Kaplan-Meier curves. The absence of an immediate increase in risk shown by the APPROVE trial was also correctively identified by most observational 25 mg studies. To our knowledge no observational study was done on the long-term cardiac toxicity of the 25-mg dose. It would thus appear that the two doses of rofecoxib have different PPPEs.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Databases, Factual; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pharmacoepidemiology; Survival Analysis; Time Factors
PubMed: 30628139
DOI: 10.1002/pds.4714 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Apr 2017The voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx (rofecoxib) from the market in 2004, as well as the 2005 and 2014 US FDA Advisory Committee meetings about non-steroidal... (Review)
Review
The voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx (rofecoxib) from the market in 2004, as well as the 2005 and 2014 US FDA Advisory Committee meetings about non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cardiovascular risk, have raised questions surrounding the use of NSAIDs in at-risk populations. This paper discusses the cardiovascular safety profile of naproxen in the context of the NSAID class. The balance of evidence suggests that cardiovascular risk correlates with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selectivity, and the low COX-2 selectivity of naproxen results in a lower cardiovascular risk than that of other NSAIDs. The over-the-counter (OTC) use of naproxen is expected to pose minimal cardiovascular risk; however, the benefit-risk ratio and appropriate use should be considered at an individual patient level, particularly to assess underlying conditions that may increase the risk of events. Likewise, regulatory authorities should revisit label information periodically to ensure labeling reflects the current understanding of benefits and risks.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Naproxen; Substrate Specificity
PubMed: 27826802
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-016-0200-5 -
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Jun 2014Cycoloxygenase-2 (COX-2) induction is prevalent in a variety of (brain and peripheral) injury models where COX-2 levels correlate with disease progression. Thus, COX-2... (Review)
Review
Cycoloxygenase-2 (COX-2) induction is prevalent in a variety of (brain and peripheral) injury models where COX-2 levels correlate with disease progression. Thus, COX-2 has been widely explored for anti-inflammatory therapy with COX-2 inhibitors, which proved to be effective in reducing the pain and inflammation in patients with arthritis and menstrual cramps, but they have not provided any benefit to patients with chronic inflammatory neurodegenerative disease. Recently, two COX-2 drugs, rofecoxib and valdecoxib, were withdrawn from the United States market due to cardiovascular side effects. Thus, future anti-inflammatory therapy could be targeted through a specific prostanoid receptor downstream of COX-2. The PGE2 receptor EP2 is emerging as a pro-inflammatory target in a variety of CNS and peripheral diseases. Here we highlight the latest developments on the role of EP2 in diseases, mechanism of activation, and small molecule discovery targeted either to enhance or to block the function of this receptor.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Eye Diseases; Gene Knockout Techniques; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Prostaglandin-Endoperoxide Synthases; Receptors, Prostaglandin E, EP2 Subtype; Signal Transduction; Stroke
PubMed: 24279689
DOI: 10.1021/jm401431x -
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) Jul 2017Cohort studies can be biased by unmeasured confounding. We propose a hybrid ecologic-epidemiologic design called the trend-in-trend design, which requires a strong time... (Review)
Review
Cohort studies can be biased by unmeasured confounding. We propose a hybrid ecologic-epidemiologic design called the trend-in-trend design, which requires a strong time trend in exposure, but is unbiased unless there are unmeasured factors affecting outcome for which there are time trends in prevalence that are correlated with time trends in exposure across strata with different exposure trends. Thus, the conditions under which the trend-in-trend study is biased are a subset of those under which a cohort study is biased. The trend-in-trend design first divides the study population into strata based on the cumulative probability of exposure given covariates, which effectively stratifies on time trend in exposure, provided there is a trend. Next, a covariates-free maximum likelihood model estimates the odds ratio (OR) using data on exposure prevalence and outcome frequency within cumulative probability of exposure strata, across multiple periods. In simulations, the trend-in-trend design produced ORs with negligible bias in the presence of unmeasured confounding. In empiric applications, trend-in-trend reproduced the known positive association between rofecoxib and myocardial infarction (observed OR: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 1.4), and known null associations between rofecoxib and severe hypoglycemia (OR = 1.1 [0.92, 1.3]) and nonvertebral fracture (OR = 0.84 [0.64, 1.1]). The trend-in-trend method may be useful in settings where there is a strong time trend in exposure, such as a newly approved drug or other medical intervention. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B178.
Topics: Bias; Cohort Studies; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Epidemiologic Methods; Epidemiologic Research Design; Female; Humans; Likelihood Functions; Male; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 27775954
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000579