-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Biomolecules Feb 2021Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most widely used classes of medicines in the treatment of inflammation, fever, and pain. However, evidence...
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most widely used classes of medicines in the treatment of inflammation, fever, and pain. However, evidence has demonstrated that these drugs can induce significant toxicity. In the search for innovative strategies to overcome NSAID-related problems, the incorporation of drugs into cyclodextrins (CDs) has demonstrated promising results. This study aims to review the impact of cyclodextrin incorporation on the biopharmaceutical and pharmacological properties of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A systematic search for papers published between 2010 and 2020 was carried out using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and the following search terms: "Complexation"; AND "Cyclodextrin"; AND "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug". A total of 24 different NSAIDs, 12 types of CDs, and 60 distinct inclusion complexes were identified, with meloxicam and β-CD appearing in most studies. The results of the present review suggest that CDs are drug delivery systems capable of improving the pharmacological and biopharmaceutical properties of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclodextrins; Humans
PubMed: 33673414
DOI: 10.3390/biom11030361 -
Indian Pediatrics Feb 2021We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of nine non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of nine non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NSAIDs for the treatment in children with JIA were searched systematically by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for available literature up to January 1, 2019. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine direct and indirect evidence on treatment effectiveness and safety.
RESULTS
Eight eligible RCTs involving 1112 patients with JIA were identified, addressing 9 interventions. The ranking probability plot based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that celecoxib (6 mg/kg twice-a-day) had the highest probability of being most effective (SUCRA = 76.4%) among four NSAIDs (celecoxib, rofecoxib, meloxicam, and naproxen). Also, rofecoxib (0.3 mg/kg once-a-day) and piroxicam demonstrated a higher probability of safety in treating children with JIA (SUCRA = 33.0% and 35.5%, respectively), compared with other interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of NSAIDs used to treat JIA.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Juvenile; Child; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33632948
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Open Sep 2020To assess the comparative efficacy of traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the comparative efficacy of traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data published as of 4 April 2020.
METHODS
We performed meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional non-selective NSAIDs versus cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and RCTs of various cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout. The main outcome measures were mean change in pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and 5-point Likert scale score on days 2-8.
RESULTS
Twenty-four trials involving five drugs were evaluated. For pain Likert scale, etoricoxib was comparable to indomethacin (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.09, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.08) but better than diclofenac 50 mg three times a day (SMD: -0.53, 95% CI: -0.98 to 0.09). Regarding pain VAS score, etoricoxib was comparable to diclofenac 75 mg two times per day (SMD: -1.63, 95% CI: -4.60 to 1.34) and diclofenac 75 mg four times a day (SMD: -1.82, 95% CI: -5.18 to 1.53), while celecoxib was comparable to diclofenac 100 mg four times a day (SMD: -2.41, 95% CI: -5.91 to 1.09). Etoricoxib showed similar patients' global assessment of response (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.07) and swollen joint count (SMD: -0.25, 95% CI: -0.74 to 0.24), but better investigator's global assessment of response (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.11) compared with indomethacin. Etoricoxib showed more favourable pain VAS score than celecoxib (SMD: -2.36, 95% CI: -3.36 to 1.37), but was comparable to meloxicam (SMD: -4.02, 95% CI: -10.28 to 2.24). Etoricoxib showed more favourable pain Likert scale than meloxicam (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.10 to 0.02). Etoricoxib 120 mg four times a day was more likely to achieve clinical improvement than celecoxib 200 mg two times per day (OR: 4.84, 95% CI: 2.19 to 10.72).
CONCLUSION
Although cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-selective NSAIDs may be equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (especially etoricoxib) may confer a greater benefit.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; China; Diclofenac; Etoricoxib; Gout; Humans
PubMed: 32912981
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036748 -
Global Spine Journal Apr 2021Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) resulting in motor deficits can be devastating injuries resulting in millions of health care dollars spent per incident. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a potential class of drugs that could improve motor function after an SCI. This systematic review utilizes PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of NSAIDs for SCI.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus were reviewed linking the keywords of "ibuprofen," "meloxicam," "naproxen," "ketorolac," "indomethacin," "celecoxib," "ATB-346," "NSAID," and "nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug" with "spinal." Results were reviewed for relevance and included if they met inclusion criteria. The SYRCLE checklist was used to assess sources of bias.
RESULTS
A total of 2960 studies were identified in the PubMed/MEDLINE database using the above-mentioned search criteria. A total of 461 abstracts were reviewed in Scopus, 340 in CINAHL, 179 in PsycINFO, and 7632 in Embase. A total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs' effectiveness after SCI is largely determined by its ability to inhibit Rho-A. NSAIDs are a promising therapeutic option in acute SCI patients because they appear to decrease cord edema and inflammation, increase axonal sprouting, and improve motor function with minimal side effects. Studies are limited by heterogeneity, small sample size, and the use of animal models, which might not replicate the therapeutic effects in humans. There are no published human studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of these drugs after a traumatic cord injury. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies evaluating ibuprofen or indomethacin after adult spinal cord injuries.
PubMed: 32875860
DOI: 10.1177/2192568220901689