-
World Journal of Clinical Cases Apr 2024Various non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). However, the optimal method for JIA has not yet been...
BACKGROUND
Various non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). However, the optimal method for JIA has not yet been developed.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the optimal instructions.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CNKI, and Wanfang without restriction for publication date or language at August, 2023. Any RCTs that comparing the effectiveness of NSAIDs with each other or placebo for JIA were included in this network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis was used to rank the treatments. value less than 0.05 was identified as statistically significant.
RESULTS
We included 8 RCTs (1127 patients) comparing 8 different instructions including meloxicam (0.125 qd and 0.250 qd), Celecoxib (3 mg/kg bid and 6 mg/kg bid), piroxicam, Naproxen (5.0 mg/kg/d, 7.5 mg/kg/d and 12.5 mg/kg/d), inuprofen (30-40 mg/kg/d), Aspirin (60-80 mg/kg/d, 75 mg/kg/d, and 55 mg/kg/d), Tolmetin (15 mg/kg/d), Rofecoxib, and placebo. There were no significant differences between any two NSAIDs regarding ACR Pedi 30 response. The SUCRA shows that celecoxib (6 mg/kg bid) ranked first (SUCRA, 88.9%), rofecoxib ranked second (SUCRA, 68.1%), Celecoxib (3 mg/kg bid) ranked third (SUCRA, 51.0%). There were no significant differences between any two NSAIDs regarding adverse events. The SUCRA shows that placebo ranked first (SUCRA, 88.2%), piroxicam ranked second (SUCRA, 60.5%), rofecoxib (0.6 mg/kg qd) ranked third (SUCRA, 56.1%), meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg qd) ranked fourth (SUCRA, 56.1%), and rofecoxib (0.3 mg/kg qd) ranked fifth (SUCRA, 56.1%).
CONCLUSION
In summary, celecoxib (6 mg/kg bid) was found to be the most effective NSAID for treating JIA. Rofecoxib, piroxicam, and meloxicam may be safer options, but further research is needed to confirm these findings in larger trials with higher quality studies.
PubMed: 38680254
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i12.2056 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of...
This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of postoperative pain, edema, and trismus in oral surgery. The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library, up to March 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and rated their methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. All of the 19 studies reviewed had at least two critical methodological flaws. Third molar surgery was the most common procedure ( = 15) and the oral route the most frequent approach ( = 14). The use of betamethasone (10, 20, and 60 mg), dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg), methylprednisolone (16, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 125 mg), and prednisolone (10 and 20 mg) by different routes and likewise of celecoxib (200 mg), diclofenac (25, 30, 50, 75, and 100 mg), etoricoxib (120 mg), ibuprofen (400 and 600 mg), ketorolac (30 mg), meloxicam (7.5, 10, and 15 mg), nimesulide (100 mg), and rofecoxib (50 mg) administered by oral, intramuscular, and intravenous routes were found to reduce pain, edema, and trismus in patients undergoing third molar surgery. Data on adverse effects were poorly reported. Further randomized clinical trials should be conducted to confirm these findings, given the wide variety of drugs, doses, and routes of administration used.
PubMed: 38328575
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1303382 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Nov 2023This systematic review aimed to identify the evidence concerning the analgesic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to treat abdominal pain in horses, and... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to identify the evidence concerning the analgesic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to treat abdominal pain in horses, and to establish whether one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug could provide better analgesia compared to others. This systematic review was conducted following the "Systematic Review Protocol for Animal Intervention Studies". Research published between 1985 and the end of May 2023 was searched, using three databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, using the words equine OR horse AND colic OR abdominal pain AND non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug AND meloxicam OR flunixin meglumine OR phenylbutazone OR firocoxib OR ketoprofen. Risk of bias was assessed with the SYRCLE risk of bias tool, and level of evidence scored according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. From those only one study judged pain with a validated pain score, and a high risk of bias was identified due to the presence of selection, performance, and "other" types of bias. Therefore, caution is required in the interpretation of results from individual studies. To date, the evidence on analgesic efficacy to determine whether one drug is more potent than another regarding the treatment of abdominal pain in horses is sparse.
PubMed: 38003065
DOI: 10.3390/ani13223447 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Jan 2023Post-orthopaedic operative pain is a serious concern that often requires the administration of analgesics; however, the optimal time of analgesic administration is still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Early perioperative versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
Post-orthopaedic operative pain is a serious concern that often requires the administration of analgesics; however, the optimal time of analgesic administration is still inconclusive. Perioperative analgesia is administrating pre-emptive analgesia before and during the surgery followed by postoperative analgesia to decrease the procedure associated nociceptive response. We aim to assess perioperative meloxicam versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control after orthopaedic operations.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis involving randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WOS, and Cochrane until 28th May 2022. We pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022336046.
RESULTS
We included five RCTs with 964 patients. All the included trials showed high risk of performance and detection biases because of lack of blinding. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing pain score after six hours (MD: -0.42 with 95% CI [-0.63, -0.21], = .0001), 12 h (MD: -0.54 with 95% CI [-0.69, -0.39], = .00001), and 24 h (MD: -0.23 with 95% CI [-0.36, -0.10]. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in improving patient global assessment scale after 12 h (MD: -0.66 with 95% CI [-0.86, -0.46], = .00001), 24 h (MD: -0.30 with 95% CI [-0.49, -0.11, = .002), and 48 h (MD: -0.17 with 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01], = .04). Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing patient-controlled analgesia (MD: -4.25 with 95% CI [-5.96, -2.54], = .00001).
CONCLUSION
Short-term pain management after orthopaedic procedures is better accomplished with perioperative meloxicam than postoperative meloxicam. Before recommending perioperative meloxicam for pain control following orthopaedic surgeries, further multicentre trials are still warranted to examine the impact of perioperative meloxicam in different orthopaedic procedures.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Meloxicam; Orthopedics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Orthopedic Procedures
PubMed: 36245362
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2135837 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022Pain following most surgical procedures is expected. However, the treatment and management of postoperative surgical pain have remained challenging. The use of opioid...
INTRODUCTION
Pain following most surgical procedures is expected. However, the treatment and management of postoperative surgical pain have remained challenging. The use of opioid therapy has become increasingly controversial given the limited therapeutic window of these drugs, the adverse side effects, and the potential for abuse. A multimodal approach to the treatment of postoperative pain has been shown to improve pain outcomes after surgery and improve patient satisfaction. Here, we examine a new formulation of bupivacaine and meloxicam extended-release solution HTX-011 (ZYNRELEF®) and its efficacy in postoperative pain control.
AREAS COVERED
HTX-011 exists as an extended-release polymer that controls the release of the active ingredients over 72 hours. A systematic approach was taken to review PubMed (Medline) for prospective and retrospective studies related to the use of HTX-011 for the management of postoperative pain.
EXPERT OPINION
HTX-011 represents a new tool to help modulate postoperative pain. Although multimodal analgesia has been effective in managing postoperative pain, direct surgical infiltration with local anesthetics has had limited efficacy due to their short duration of action. The HTX-011 formulation provides a long-acting local anesthetic at the surgical site, which provides a longer period of analgesia while maintaining a favorable safety profile.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Meloxicam; Pain, Postoperative; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36199229
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2022.2132227 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used for pain treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines regarding the human in vivo efficacy and safety of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain treatment that take pharmacogenetic parameters into consideration. Studies were collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to the cutoff date 18 October 2021.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles out of the 6547 initially detected publications were identified. Relevant medication-gene interactions were noted for drug safety. Interactions important for pain management were detected for (1) ibuprofen/; (2) celecoxib/; (3) piroxicam/, ; (4) diclofenac/, , , ; (5) meloxicam/; (6) aspirin/, , and ; (7) amitriptyline/ and ; (8) imipramine/; (9) nortriptyline/, , ; and (10) escitalopram/, , and .
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a lack of well powered human in vivo studies assessing the pharmacogenetics in pain patients treated with NSAIDs or antidepressants is noted. Studies indicate a higher risk for partly severe side effects for the poor metabolizers and NSAIDs. Further in vivo studies are needed to consolidate the relevant polymorphisms in NSAID safety as well as in the efficacy of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain management.
PubMed: 35745763
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061190 -
Veterinary Research Communications Feb 2022Although laboratory animals experience pain as a necessary component of the objectives of experimental protocols, the level of pain should be minimized through use of an... (Review)
Review
Although laboratory animals experience pain as a necessary component of the objectives of experimental protocols, the level of pain should be minimized through use of an adequate analgesic regimen. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug meloxicam may be beneficial in alleviating post-operative pain in mice, although no regimen has been demonstrated as universally efficacious owing to differences in experimental protocols, strain, sex, and incomplete descriptions of methodology in the literature. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify potential applications of meloxicam for pain management in experimental mice and to evaluate the general quality of study design. Searches of MEDLINE, Scopus and CAB Direct databases elicited 94 articles published between January 2000 and April 2020 that focused on the analgesic efficacy of meloxicam in the management of momentary or persistent pain in mice. The extracted data showed that most articles were deficient in descriptions of housing, husbandry, group size calculation and humane endpoint criteria, while few described adverse effects of the drug. A wide range of dosages of meloxicam was identified with analgesic efficiencies that varied considerably according to the different models or procedures studied. It was impossible to correlate the extracted data into a single meta-analysis because of the differences in experimental protocols and strains employed, the low representation of female mice in the studies, and incomplete descriptions of the methodology applied. We conclude that meloxicam has potential application for pain management in mice but that the dosage must be adjusted carefully according to the experimental procedures. Moreover, authors must take more care in designing their studies and in describing the methodology employed.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Meloxicam; Mice; Pain
PubMed: 34988874
DOI: 10.1007/s11259-021-09868-2 -
Stem Cell Research & Therapy May 2021Mobilization failure may occur when the conventional hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) mobilization agent granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used alone, new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mobilization failure may occur when the conventional hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) mobilization agent granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used alone, new regimens were developed to improve mobilization efficacy. Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the efficacy of these regimens via animal models, but the results are inconsistent. We aim to compare the efficacy of different HSC mobilization regimens and identify new promising regimens with a network meta-analysis of preclinical studies.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase databases for the eligible animal studies that compared the efficacy of different HSC mobilization regimens. Primary outcome is the number of total colony-forming cells (CFCs) in per milliliter of peripheral blood (/ml PB), and the secondary outcome is the number of Lin Sca1 Kit (LSK) cells/ml PB. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed following the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit (NICE DSU) with WinBUGS version 1.4.3. G-CSF-based regimens were classified into the SD (standard dose, 200-250 μg/kg/day) group and the LD (low dose, 100-150 μg/kg/day) group based on doses, and were classified into the short-term (2-3 days) group and the long-term (4-5 days) group based on administration duration. Long-term SD G-CSF was chosen as the reference treatment. Results are presented as the mean differences (MD) with the associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) for each regimen.
RESULTS
We included 95 eligible studies and reviewed the efficacy of 94 mobilization agents. Then 21 studies using the poor mobilizer mice model (C57BL/6 mice) to investigate the efficacy of different mobilization regimens were included for network meta-analysis. Network meta-analyses indicated that compared with long-term SD G-CSF alone, 14 regimens including long-term SD G-CSF + Me6, long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 + EP80031, long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 + FG-4497, long-term SD G-CSF + ML141, long-term SD G-CSF + desipramine, AMD3100 + meloxicam, long-term SD G-CSF + reboxetine, AMD3100 + VPC01091, long-term SD G-CSF + FG-4497, Me6, long-term SD G-CSF + EP80031, POL5551, long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100, AMD1300 + EP80031 and long-term LD G-CSF + meloxicam significantly increased the collections of total CFCs. G-CSF + Me6 ranked first among these regimens in consideration of the number of harvested CFCs/ml PB (MD 2168.0, 95% CrI 2062.0-2272.0). In addition, 7 regimens including long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100, AMD3100 + EP80031, long-term SD G-CSF + EP80031, short-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 + IL-33, long-term SD G-CSF + ML141, short-term LD G-CSF + ARL67156, and long-term LD G-CSF + meloxicam significantly increased the collections of LSK cells compared with G-CSF alone. Long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 ranked first among these regimens in consideration of the number of harvested LSK cells/ml PB (MD 2577.0, 95% CrI 2422.0-2733.0).
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the number of CFC and LSK cells in PB as outcomes, G-CSF plus AMD3100, Me6, EP80031, ML141, FG-4497, IL-33, ARL67156, meloxicam, desipramine, and reboxetine are all promising mobilizing regimens for future investigation.
Topics: Animals; Bayes Theorem; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Mice; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34051862
DOI: 10.1186/s13287-021-02379-6 -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Mar 2021Total glucosides of paeony (TGP), an active compound extracted from the roots of Paeonia lactiflora Pallas, has been increasingly used as the adjunctive therapy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Total glucosides of paeony (TGP), an active compound extracted from the roots of Paeonia lactiflora Pallas, has been increasingly used as the adjunctive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Though TGP could mitigate the unanticipated adverse effects during the conventional treatment of RA, high-quality evidence-based meta-analysis data on this subject are still insufficient. The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical safety of TGP adjuvant therapy in the RA treatment.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed and WanFang Data were retrieved for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort study about TGP adjuvant therapy in patients with RA up to 28 January 2021. Literatures with eligibility criteria and information were screened and extracted by two researchers independently. The RevMan5.3 software was used for data analysis with effect estimates as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 39 studies involving 3680 RA participants were included. There were 8 comparisons: TGP plus methotrexate (MTX) therapy versus MTX therapy, TGP plus leflunomide (LEF) therapy versus LEF therapy, TGP plus MTX and LEF therapy versus MTX plus LEF therapy, TGP plus tripterygium glycosides (TG) therapy versus TG therapy, TGP plus meloxicam (MLX) therapy versus MLX therapy and TGP plus sulfasalazine (SSZ) therapy versus SSZ therapy, TGP plus iguratimod (IGU) therapy versus IGU therapy, TGP plus prednisone acetate tablets (PAT) therapy versus PAT therapy. The meta-analysis results showed that the occurrence of hepatic adverse effect (RR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.23-0.41, P < 0.00001) and leukopenia (RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.26-0.66, P = 0.0002) in TGP adjuvant therapy was significant decreased compared with non-TGP therapy. However, only TGP plus LEF therapy (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.08-0.60, P = 0.003) and TGP plus MTX and LEF therapy (RR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.22-0.42, P < 0.00001) had statistical difference in the subgroups of hepatic adverse effect. In leukopenia, TGP plus MTX and LEF therapy (RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.25-0.87, P = 0.02) had statistical difference.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicated that TGP adjuvant therapy might alleviate the incidence of hepatic adverse effect and leukopenia for the RA treatment compared to non-TGP therapy. The clinical safety of TGP adjuvant therapy warrant further investigation in experimental studies.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucosides; Humans; Methotrexate; Paeonia; Phytochemicals; Phytotherapy; Plant Roots; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33771151
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03252-y -
Efficacy of tramadol for postoperative pain management in dogs: systematic review and meta-analysis.Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia May 2021To evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy of tramadol for the management of postoperative pain and the presence of associated adverse events in dogs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy of tramadol for the management of postoperative pain and the presence of associated adverse events in dogs.
DATABASES USED
A comprehensive search using PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, Google Scholar and CAB databases with no restrictions on language and following a prespecified protocol was performed from June 2019 to July 2020. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in dogs that had undergone general anesthesia for any type of surgery. Two authors independently classified the studies, extracted data and assessed their risk of bias using Cochrane's tool. RevMan and GRADE methods were used to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall 26 RCTs involving 848 dogs were included. Tramadol administration probably results in a lower need for rescue analgesia versus no treatment or placebo [moderate CoE; relative risk (RR): 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.85; I = 0%], and may result in a lower need for rescue analgesia versus buprenorphine (low CoE; RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.20-1.24), codeine (low CoE; RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.16-3.41) and nalbuphine (low CoE; RR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.00-0.72). However, tramadol administration may result in an increased requirement for rescue analgesia versus methadone (low CoE; RR: 3.45; 95% CI: 0.66-18.08; I = 43%) and COX inhibitors (low CoE; RR: 2.27; 95% CI: 0.68-7.60; I = 45%). Compared with multimodal therapy, tramadol administration may make minimal to no difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia (low CoE; RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.48-2.60; I = 0%). Adverse events were inconsistently reported and the CoE was very low. The overall CoE of the analgesic efficacy of tramadol for postoperative pain management in dogs was low or very low, and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision.
Topics: Analgesia; Animals; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Nalbuphine; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Tramadol
PubMed: 33745825
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2021.01.003