-
Drug Safety Dec 2012The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [SOS] project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
METHODS
We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4-5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses.
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Case-Control Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23137151
DOI: 10.2165/11633470-000000000-00000 -
Acupuncture in Medicine : Journal of... Dec 2012A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of intramuscular stimulation (IMS). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of intramuscular stimulation (IMS).
METHODS
Electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, KoreaMED, Korean Studies Information Service System, RISS and DBPIA were searched through June, 2012. The Cochrane criteria were used to assess the risk of bias for the individual studies.
RESULTS
A total of 416 publications were initially collected and four studies were included in this review. One study evaluated the efficacy of IMS for chronic tension-type headaches; IMS showed a better effect than the sham (headache index: mean difference (MD) -4.90, 95% CI -9.53 to -0.27). Three studies tested the effectiveness of IMS for various conditions. In the first study no significant difference was observed in a comparison of IMS and meloxicam therapy for chronic shoulder pain (pain-visual analogue scale (VAS): MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.16). The second study in patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the upper trapezius muscle found that IMS had a greater effect than simple dry needling measured by the pain-VAS (MD -2.70, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.63). In the third study, patients with lower back pain who received IMS plus the standard treatment had a better status at discharge than those receiving the standard treatment alone (relative risk 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the positive results of these individual studies, the level of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of IMS for several conditions remains insufficient because of concerns about a lack of precision and a high risk of bias of the included studies. Rigorous large-scale clinical trials of IMS are needed to evaluate the clinical utility of this technique.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Headache; Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22871295
DOI: 10.1136/acupmed-2012-010182 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2011Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Review Literature as Topic; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 21901726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub2 -
Arthritis and Rheumatism Jun 2010Traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding/perforation, but the magnitude of this effect for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding/perforation, but the magnitude of this effect for coxibs in the general population and the degree of variability between individual NSAIDs is still under debate. This study was undertaken to assess the risk of upper GI bleeding/perforation among users of individual NSAIDs and to analyze the correlation between this risk and the degree of inhibition of whole blood cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1) and COX-2 in vitro.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies on NSAIDs and upper GI bleeding/perforation published between 2000 and 2008. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) estimates of upper GI bleeding/perforation for individual NSAIDs. Additionally, we verified whether the degree of inhibition of whole blood COX-1 and COX-2 in vitro by average circulating concentrations predicted the RR of upper GI bleeding/perforation.
RESULTS
The RR of upper GI bleeding/perforation was 4.50 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.82-5.31) for traditional NSAIDs and 1.88 (95% CI 0.96-3.71) for coxibs. RRs lower than that for NSAIDs overall were observed for ibuprofen (2.69 [95% CI 2.17-3.33]), rofecoxib (2.12 [95% CI 1.59-2.84]), aceclofenac (1.44 [95% CI 0.65-3.2]), and celecoxib (1.42 [95% CI 0.85-2.37]), while higher RRs were observed for ketorolac (14.54 [95% CI 5.87-36.04]) and piroxicam (9.94 [95% CI 5.99-16.50). Estimated RRs were 5.63 (95% CI 3.83-8.28) for naproxen, 5.57 (95% CI 3.94-7.87) for ketoprofen, 5.40 (95% CI 4.16-7.00) for indomethacin, 4.15 (95% CI 2.59-6.64) for meloxicam, and 3.98 (95% CI 3.36-4.72) for diclofenac. The degree of inhibition of whole blood COX-1 did not significantly correlate with RR of upper GI bleeding/perforation associated with individual NSAIDs (r(2) = 0.34, P = 0.058), but a profound and coincident inhibition (>80%) of both COX isozymes was associated with higher risk. NSAIDs with a long plasma half-life and with a slow-release formulation were associated with a greater risk than NSAIDs with a short half-life.
CONCLUSION
The results of our analysis demonstrate that risk of upper GI bleeding/perforation varies between individual NSAIDs at the doses commonly used in the general population. Drugs that have a long half-life or slow-release formulation and/or are associated with profound and coincident inhibition of both COX isozymes are associated with a greater risk of upper GI bleeding/perforation.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Half-Life; Humans; Regression Analysis; Risk; Risk Factors
PubMed: 20178131
DOI: 10.1002/art.27412 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used mainly in treating pain associated with arthritis. The usual oral dose for osteoarthritis is 15 mg... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used mainly in treating pain associated with arthritis. The usual oral dose for osteoarthritis is 15 mg daily, but lower doses of 7.5 mg are advised in older patients. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of single dose oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (June 2009); EMBASE (June 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral meloxicam for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral meloxicam in patients with established postoperative pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Humans; Meloxicam; Pain, Postoperative; Thiazines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 19821429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007552.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Sulindac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sulindac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in other countries worldwide. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of single dose oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies up to June 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral sulindac for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral sulindac in patients with established postoperative pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Sulindac
PubMed: 19821425
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007540.pub2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2008To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (etodolac, meloxicam,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched up to November 2003. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2003 were also reviewed.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a model-based economic evaluation were undertaken. Meta-analyses were undertaken for each COX-2 selective NSAID compared with placebo and non-selective NSAIDs. The model was designed to run in two forms: the 'full Assessment Group Model (AGM)', which includes an initial drug switching cycle, and the 'simpler AGM', where there is no initial cycle and no opportunity for the patient to switch NSAID.
RESULTS
Compared with non-selective NSAIDs, the COX-2 selective NSAIDs were found to be equally as efficacious as the non-selective NSAIDs (although meloxicam was found to be of inferior or equivalent efficacy) and also to be associated with significantly fewer clinical upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events (although relatively small numbers of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) and myocardial infarction (MI) events were reported across trials). Subgroup analyses of clinical and complicated UGI events and MI events in relation to aspirin use, steroid use, prior GI history and Helicobacter pylori status were based on relatively small numbers and were inconclusive. In the RCTs that included direct COX-2 comparisons, the drugs were equally tolerated and of equal efficacy. Trials were of insufficient size and duration to allow comparison of risk of clinical UGI events, complicated UGI events and MIs. One RCT compared COX-2 (celecoxib) with a non-selective NSAID combined with a gastroprotective agent (diclofenac combined with omeprazole); this included arthritis patients who had recently suffered a GI haemorrhage. Although no significant difference in clinical GI events was reported, the number of events was small and more such studies, where patients genuinely need NSAIDs, are required to confirm these data. A second trial showed that rofecoxib was associated with fewer diarrhoea events than a combination of diclofenac and misoprostol (Arthrotec). Previously published cost-effectiveness analyses indicated a wide of range of possible incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained estimates. Using the simpler AGM, with ibuprofen or diclofenac alone as the comparator, all of the COX-2 products are associated with higher costs (i.e. positive incremental costs) and small increases in effectiveness (i.e. positive incremental effectiveness), measured in terms of QALYs. The magnitude of the incremental costs and the incremental effects, and therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, vary considerably across all COX-2 selective NSAIDs. The base-case incremental cost per QALY results for COX-2 selective NSAIDs compared with diclofenac for the simpler model are: celecoxib (low dose) 68,400 pounds; celecoxib (high dose) 151,000 pounds; etodolac (branded) 42,400 pounds; etodolac (generic) 17,700 pounds; etoricoxib 31,300 pounds; lumiracoxib 70,400 pounds; meloxicam (low dose) 10,300 pounds; meloxicam (high dose) 17,800 pounds; rofecoxib 97,400 pounds; and valdecoxib 35,500 pounds. When the simpler AGM was run using ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) as the comparator, the results change substantially, with the COX-2 selective NSAIDs looking generally unattractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view (COX-2 selective NSAIDs were dominated by ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with PPI in most cases). This applies both to 'standard' and 'high-risk' arthritis patients defined in terms of previous GI ulcers. The full AGM produced results broadly in line with the simpler model.
CONCLUSIONS
The COX-2 selective NSAIDs examined were found to be similar to non-selective NSAIDs for the symptomatic relief of RA and OA and to provide superior GI tolerability (the majority of evidence is in patients with OA). Although COX-2 selective NSAIDs offer protection against serious GI events, the amount of evidence for this protective effect varied considerably across individual drugs. The volume of trial evidence with regard to cardiovascular safety also varied substantially between COX-2 selective NSAIDs. Increased risk of MI compared to non-selective NSAIDs was observed among those drugs with greater volume of evidence in terms of exposure in patient-years. Economic modelling shows a wide range of possible costs per QALY gained in patients with OA and RA. Costs per QALY also varied if individual drugs were used in 'standard' or 'high'-risk patients, the choice of non-selective NSAID comparator and whether that NSAID was combined with a PPI. With reduced costs of PPIs, future primary research needs to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 selective NSAIDs relative to non-selective NSAIDs with a PPI. Direct comparisons of different COX-2 selective NSAIDs, using equivalent doses, that compare GI and MI risk are needed. Pragmatic studies that include a wider range of people, including the older age groups with a greater burden of arthritis, are also necessary to inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Markov Chains; Models, Econometric; Omeprazole; Osteoarthritis; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Thrombosis
PubMed: 18405470
DOI: 10.3310/hta12110 -
Journal of the American Veterinary... Feb 2007To identify and critically evaluate the quality of evidence of the most commonly used pharmacologic, nutraceutical, and purported slow-acting drugs of osteoarthritis for... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and critically evaluate the quality of evidence of the most commonly used pharmacologic, nutraceutical, and purported slow-acting drugs of osteoarthritis for the management of osteoarthritis in dogs by use of the FDA's evidence-based medicine scoring system.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SAMPLE POPULATION
16 clinical trials.
PROCEDURES
A broad bibliographic search was performed prior to May 2006. Inclusion criteria focused on prospective trials evaluating commonly used medical treatment interventions for the management of osteoarthritis in dogs and published in peer-reviewed journals. The analysis consisted of the following: study design rating, quality factor rating, quantity rating, consistency rating, relevance to disease risk reduction rating, and cumulative strength of evidence ranking.
RESULTS
4 trials evaluating meloxicam were rated as type I. Three trials evaluating carprofen were rated as type I, and 2 trials were rated as type III. One trial evaluating each of the following agents was rated as type 1: etodolac; P54FP; polysulfated glycosaminoglycan; and a combination of chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine hydrochloride, and manganese ascorbate. Two trials evaluating pentosan polysulphate and 2 trails evaluating green-lipped mussels were rated as type I. One trial evaluating hyaluronan was rated as type III.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
A high level of comfort exists for meloxicam that the claimed relationship is scientifically valid and that its use is clinically efficacious for the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs. A moderate level of comfort exists for carprofen; etodolac; pentosan polysulphate; green-lipped mussels; P54FP; polysulfated glycosaminoglycans; and a combination of chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine hydrochloride, and manganese ascorbate. An extremely low level of comfort exists for hyaluronan.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chondroitin; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucosamine; Meloxicam; Osteoarthritis; Severity of Illness Index; Thiazines; Thiazoles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17302547
DOI: 10.2460/javma.230.4.514