Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout

BACKGROUND

Gout is an inflammatory arthritis resulting from the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in and around joints. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (including cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs)) for acute gout.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for studies to 28 August 2020. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain, inflammation, function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events, and total adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this update 28 trials (3406 participants), including 5 new trials. One trial (30 participants) compared NSAIDs to placebo, 6 (1244 participants) compared non-selective NSAIDs to selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs), 5 (712 participants) compared NSAIDs to glucocorticoids, 13 compared one NSAID to another NSAID (633 participants), and single trials compared NSAIDs to rilonacept (225 participants), acupuncture (163 participants), and colchicine (399 participants). Most trials were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases. We report numerical data for the primary comparison NSAIDs versus placebo and brief results for the two comparisons - NSAIDs versus COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs versus glucocorticoids. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) from 1 trial (30 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to placebo. More participants (11/15) may have a 50% reduction in pain at 24 hours with NSAIDs than with placebo (4/15) (risk ratio (RR) 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 6.7), with absolute improvement of 47% (3.5% more to 152.5% more). NSAIDs may have little to no effect on inflammation (swelling) after four days (13/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 12/15 participants taking placebo; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), with absolute improvement of 6.4% (16.8% fewer to 39.2% more). There may be little to no difference in function (4-point scale; 1 = complete resolution) at 24 hours (4/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 1/15 participants taking placebo; RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 31.7), with absolute improvement of 20% (3.3% fewer to 204.9% more). NSAIDs may result in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (0 events in both groups) or in total adverse events; two adverse events (nausea and polyuria) were reported in the placebo group (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 3.8), with absolute difference of 10.7% more (13.2% fewer to 38% more). Treatment success and health-related quality of life were not measured. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 6 trials (1244 participants) shows non-selective NSAIDs compared to selective COX-2 inhibitors (COXIBs). Non-selective NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.14 higher), swelling (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.22 higher), treatment success (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 lower to 0.2 higher), or quality of life (MD -0.2, 95% CI -6.7 to 6.3) compared to COXIBs. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests no difference in function (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25) between groups. Non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.1) and total adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) based on 5 trials (712 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids. NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 3.0), inflammation (MD 0.3, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.6), function (MD -0.2, 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8), or treatment success (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). There was no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events with NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids (RR 2.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 14.2). There was a decrease in total adverse events with glucocorticoids compared to NSAIDs (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from 1 placebo-controlled trial suggests that NSAIDs may improve pain at 24 hours and may have little to no effect on function, inflammation, or adverse events for treatment of acute gout. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that COXIBs and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial with regards to improvement in pain, function, inflammation, and treatment success, although non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs probably are equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, improvement in function, and treatment success. Withdrawals due to adverse events were also similar between groups, but NSAIDs probably result in more total adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in inflammation between groups. Only low-certainty evidence was available for the comparisons NSAID versus rilonacept and NSAID versus acupuncture from single trials, or one NSAID versus another NSAID, which also included many NSAIDs that are no longer in clinical use. Although these data were insufficient to support firm conclusions, they do not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, findings for other inflammatory arthritis, and expert consensus, all of which support the use of NSAIDs for acute gout.

PGE2/EP4 skeleton interoception activity reduces vertebral endplate porosity and spinal pain with low-dose celecoxib

Skeletal interoception regulates bone homeostasis through the prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) concentration in bone. Vertebral endplates undergo ossification and become highly porous during intervertebral disc degeneration and aging. We found that the PGE2 concentration was elevated in porous endplates to generate spinal pain. Importantly, treatment with a high-dose cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor (celecoxib, 80 mg·kg⁻¹ per day) decreased the prostaglandin E2 concentration and attenuated spinal pain in mice with lumbar spine instability. However, this treatment impaired bone formation in porous endplates, and spinal pain recurred after discontinuing the treatment. Interestingly, low-dose celecoxib (20 mg·kg⁻¹ per day, which is equivalent to one-quarter of the clinical maximum dosage) induced a latent inhibition of spinal pain at 3 weeks post-treatment, which persisted even after discontinuing treatment. Furthermore, when the prostaglandin E2 concentration was maintained at the physiological level with low-dose celecoxib, endplate porosity was reduced significantly, which was associated with decreased sensory nerve innervation and spinal pain. These findings suggest that low-dose celecoxib may help to maintain skeletal interoception and decrease vertebral endplate porosity, thereby reducing sensory innervation and spinal pain in mice.

Medications Used for Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Endodontic Pain: A Systematic Review

Objective:

Prevention and management of postoperative endodontic pain is a common challenge for the endodontists. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medicament therapeutic protocols in the prevention and management of endodontic pain.

Methods:

A literature search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACs, and SciELO, for articles published until December 2017, without year restriction and written only in English. An additional search was performed in the references of the retrieved studies.

Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: The inclusion criteria were randomised clinical trials that evaluated the use of medications to prevent or control moderate to severe pain in adult patients, using a visual analog scale as a tool for pain measurement. The primary outcome evaluated was the reduction of pain scores. The second outcome evaluated was the need for additional analgesia and the occurrence of adverse events.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The quality assessment of the included studies was performed following the Jadad scale to measure the likelihood of bias in pain research reports.

Results:

After removing duplicates and excluding the studies that did not meet the selection criteria, ten studies were included tin the systematic review. Among these studies, five studies administered the medications before the endodontic procedures and five studies after. These studies evaluated non-opioid analgesics (acetaminophen), opioid analgesics (tramadol and codeine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (ibuprofen, flurbiprofen, ketorolac tromethamine, etodolac, tenoxicam, and naproxen), steroidal anti-inflammatory (prednisolone) or the association of medications to prevent or control postoperative pain. It was possible to establish a significant relationship between the use of additional analgesics and periapical diagnosis. Adverse events were not observed when the administration occurred before the endodontic procedure. When it was administered after the procedure, adverse reactions were reported in 2 of 3 trials included in the analysis.

Limitations: A restricted number of randomised clinical trials were found, and the difference in the methodology of the studies did not meet the definition of a systemic treatment protocol for prevention or control of postoperative pain.

Conclusion:

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most common medicament to prevent and control postoperative pain, with ibuprofen being the most investigated. There is a significant association between the use of additional analgesics and periapical diagnoses.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.

Celecoxib for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies. Celecoxib versus placeboCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).Compared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).There was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).Results were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).Compared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).Based on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).In comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).No studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout

BACKGROUND

Gout is an inflammatory arthritis that is characterised by the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in synovial fluid and other tissues. The natural history of articular gout is generally characterised by three periods: asymptomatic hyperuricaemia, episodes of acute gout and chronic gouty arthritis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) including selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. Published guidelines recommend their use to treat acute attacks, using maximum recommended doses for a short time.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and safety of NSAIDs (including COXIBs) for acute gout.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies to 7 October 2013, the 2010 and 2011 ACR and EULAR abstracts and performed a handsearch of reference lists of articles. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trial register and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that compared NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy (including non-pharmacological therapies) for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain (proportion with 50% or more reduction in pain or mean pain when the dichotomous outcome was unavailable), inflammation (e.g. measured by joint swelling/erythema/tenderness), function of target joint, participant's global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials (2200 participants).One trial (30 participants) of low-quality evidence compared an NSAID (tenoxicam) with placebo. It found that significantly more participants had more than 50% reduction in pain after 24 hours (11/15 participants) compared with those taking placebo (4/15 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 6.72). A similar outcome was seen for more than 50% improvement in joint swelling after 24 hours (5/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 2/15 participants taking placebo; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.93). The trial did not measure function, participant global assessment of treatment success and health-related quality of life. There were no adverse events reported with the use of tenoxicam; two adverse events (nausea and polypuria) were reported in the placebo group. No between-group differences in outcome were observed after four days.Moderate-quality evidence based upon four trials (974 participants) indicated that NSAIDs and COXIBs produced similar benefits in terms of pain, swelling and global improvement, but COXIBs were associated with fewer adverse events. Pain reduction was 1.9 points on a 0- to 10-point scale with COXIBs (0 was no pain) while pain reduction with NSAIDs was 0.03 points lower or better (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.13). Joint swelling in the COXIB group was 1.64 points on a 0- to 3-point scale (0 is no swelling) and 0.13 points higher with NSAIDs (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.34). Function was not reported. Participant-reported global assessment was 1.56 points on a 0- to 4-point scale with COXIBs (0 was the best score) and was 0.04 points higher with NSAIDs (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.20). Health-related quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form showed no evidence of a statistically significant between-group difference (MD 0.49, 95% CI -1.61 to 2.60 for the physical component). There were significantly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events in participants treated with COXIBs (3%) compared with NSAIDs (8%) (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.28). There was a significantly lower number of total adverse events in participants treated with COXIBs (38%) compared with NSAIDs (60%) (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86).There was moderate-quality evidence based on two trials (210 participants) that oral glucocorticoids did not differ in pain reduction, function or adverse events when compared with NSAIDs. Pain reduction was 9.5 on a 0- to 100-point scale with glucocorticoids, pain reduction with NSAIDs was 1.74 higher or worse (MD 1.74, 95% CI -1.44 to 4.92). The trials did not assess inflammation. Function measured as walking disability was 17.4 points on a 0- to 100-point scale with glucocorticoids, function with NSAIDs was 0.1 lower or better (MD -0.10, 95% CI -4.72 to 4.52). The trials did not measure participant-reported global assessment and health-related quality of life. There were no withdrawals due to adverse events. There was no evidence of a difference in total number of adverse events with glucocorticoids (31%) versus NSAIDs (49%) (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.28).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence supported the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of acute gout. One placebo-controlled trial provided evidence of benefit at 24 hours and little or no harm. We downgraded the evidence due to potential selection and reporting biases, and imprecision. While these data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions, they did not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, other inflammatory arthritis and expert consensus, which support the use of NSAIDs in acute gout.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that selective COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial although COX-2 inhibitors are likely to be associated with significantly fewer total and gastrointestinal adverse events. We downgraded the evidence due to an unclear risk of selection and reporting biases. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs were also equally beneficial in terms of pain relief. There were no withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events were similar between groups. We downgraded the evidence due to unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. There was low-quality evidence that there was no difference in function. We downgraded the quality due to unclear risk of selection bias and imprecision.

Use of glucosamine and chondroitin to treat osteoarthritis: a review of the literature

To evaluate the current evidence that support or disprove the use of glucosamine and chondroitin in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. We performed a literature review using the databases of Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and Cochrane Databases Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library). We considered only studies with high level of evidence. The study included analysis of randomized controlled trials that included at least 100 patients in each intervention group, meta-analyzes and systematic reviews. Seven meta-analysis, one systematic review and five randomized clinical trials fit inclusion criteria of this review. Considering the best evidences until now, the use of glucosamine and chondroitin does not provide clinical relevant benefits to patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip (Level I of evidence and grade A of recommendation). Further trials with adequate technology are necessaries to elucidate this question.

Pain management for rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Pain in rheumatoid arthritis is common, is often multi-factorial and many different pharmacotherapeutic agents are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that some of the pain pharmacotherapies currently used may increase the risk of adverse events in people with rheumatoid arthritis and concurrent cardiovascular or renal disease.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess and collate the scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of using pain pharmacotherapy in people with rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4); MEDLINE, from 1950; EMBASE, from 1980; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We also handsearched the conference proceedings for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) for 2008-09, and checked the websites of regulatory agencies for reported adverse events, labels and warnings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing the efficacy and safety of pain pharmacotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with and without comorbid cardiovascular or renal conditions.In addition, we also considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort and case control studies and case series (N ≥ 20) to assess safety.For the purpose of our review, pain pharmacotherapy was defined as including simple analgesics (such as paracetamol), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids or opioid-like drugs (such as tramadol), and neuromodulators (including anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, and muscle relaxants).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results and planned to extract data and appraise the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Many of the trials of NSAIDs explicitly excluded patients with cardiovascular or renal comorbidities.We did identify one trial that reported evidence in mixed populations (including both rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis) taking either diclofenac or etoricoxib. In this study, the presence of cardiovascular disease increased the likelihood of a further cardiovascular event three-fold. Patients with two or more cardiovascular comorbidities showed a two-fold increased likelihood of adverse cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no trials that specifically compared the efficacy and safety of pain pharmacotherapies for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with and without comorbid cardiovascular or renal conditions.In the absence of specific evidence in rheumatoid arthritis, current guidelines recommend that NSAIDs be used with caution in the general rheumatoid arthritis population while highlighting the added need for extra vigilance in patients with established cardiovascular disease or risk factors for its development. Current guidelines regarding the use of NSAIDs and opioids in moderate to severe renal impairment should also be applied to the rheumatoid arthritis population.Further research is required to guide clinicians when treating pain in rheumatoid arthritis.

Combination therapy versus celecoxib, a single selective COX-2 agent, to reduce gastrointestinal toxicity in arthritic patients: patient and cost-effectiveness considerations

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for treating symptoms of rheumatologic diseases, such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Knowing their side effects and the way to minimize them is a medical responsibility. To reduce NSAID-related risk, clinicians should choose a gastroprotective strategy. This may include coprescribing a traditional NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor or a high-dose histamine 2-receptor antagonist (H₂RA), or using a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor or a COX-2 with a proton pump inhibitor. Assessing each patient’s risk (cardiovascular and gastrointestinal) is a priority in order to decide the best intervention to minimize toxicity. In this article, we review some of the common interventions for reducing the gastrointestinal side effects of NSAIDs.

Efficacy and Safety of COX-2 Inhibitors in the Clinical Management of Arthritis: Mini Review

In the clinical management of arthritis, the choice of nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drug (NSAID) remains confusing and controversial. A common practice on the choice of NSAID in clinical management of arthritis is the risk benefit ratio. The main objective of this review is to addresses the main arguments for the pharmacological and clinical use of COX-2 inhibitors in relation to nonselective NSAIDs for the clinical management of arthritis. This review concluded that, both NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors are equally effective and are associated with increased risk of GI, renal, and CV, adverse effects. Complete understanding of the patient's comorbid conditions and concomitant medications, coupled with precise monitoring during the treatment, may help to decrease the threat of adverse effects induced by nonselective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors.

The appropriate use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatic disease: opinions of a multidisciplinary European expert panel

INTRODUCTION

Given the safety issues of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and the robustness of guidelines, making treatment choices in daily clinical practice is increasingly difficult. This study aimed systematically to analyse the opinions of a multidisciplinary European expert panel on the appropriateness of different NSAID, with or without the use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), in individual patients with chronic rheumatic disease.

METHODS

/Using the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method, the appropriateness of five (non-)selective NSAID with or without a PPI was assessed for 144 hypothetical patient profiles, ie, unique combinations of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risk factors. Appropriateness statements were calculated for all indications.

RESULTS

All options without PPI were considered appropriate in patients with no gastrointestinal/cardiovascular risk factors. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (C2SI) alone and non-selective NSAID plus PPI were preferred for patients with elevated gastrointestinal risk and low cardiovascular risk. Naproxen plus PPI was favoured in patients with high cardiovascular risk. For the combination of high gastrointestinal/high cardiovascular risk the use of any NSAID was discouraged; if needed, naproxen plus PPI or a C2SI plus PPI could be considered.

DISCUSSION

The panel results may support treatment considerations at the level of individual patients, according to their gastrointestinal/cardiovascular risk profile.

EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis: report of a task force of the European Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVE

To formulate EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis.

METHODS

In accordance with EULAR's "standardised operating procedures", the task force pursued an evidence based approach and an approach based on expert opinion. A steering group comprised of 14 rheumatologists representing 10 European countries. The group defined the focus of the process, the target population, and formulated an operational definition of "management". Each participant was invited to propose issues of interest regarding the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis. Fifteen issues for further research were selected by use of a modified Delphi technique. A systematic literature search was carried out. Evidence was categorised according to usual guidelines. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the literature search.. The strength of the recommendations was based on the category of evidence and expert opinion.

RESULTS

15 research questions, covering the entire spectrum of "management of early arthritis", were formulated for further research; and 284 studies were identified and evaluated. Twelve recommendations for the management of early arthritis were selected and presented with short sentences. The selected statements included recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognosis, classification, and treatment of early arthritis (information, education, non-pharmacological interventions, pharmacological treatments, and monitoring of the disease process). On the basis of expert opinion, 11 items were identified as being important for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

12 key recommendations for the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis were developed, based on evidence in the literature and expert consensus.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is increasingly used for the treatment of osteoarthritis because, in contrast to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol does not produce gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems, and does not affect articular cartilage.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the analgesic effectiveness, the effect on physical function, the duration of benefit and the safety of oral tramadol in people with osteoarthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to August 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol or tramadol plus paracetamol on pain levels and/or physical function in people with osteoarthritis. No language restriction was applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We analyzed separately placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies. We used fixed-effect models for the meta-analyses as the results across studies were similar.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven RCTs with a total of 1019 participants who received tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol and 920 participants who received placebo or active-control. The placebo-controlled studies indicated that participants who received tramadol had less pain (-8.5 units on a 0 to 100 scale; 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.0 to -5.0) than patients who received placebo. This represents a 12% relative decrease in pain intensity from baseline. Participants who received tramadol had a 37% increase (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5) in the likelihood of reporting moderate improvement (number needed to treat to benefit = 6; 95% CI 4 to 9). Participants who received tramadol had 2.27 times the risk of developing minor adverse events and 2.6 times the risk of developing major adverse events, compared to participants who received placebo. Of every eight people who receive tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol, one will stop taking the medication because of adverse events, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH)= 8 (95% CI 7 to 12) for major adverse events. No conclusion could be drawn on how tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol compared with available pharmacological treatments because of the limited number of studies that evaluated such therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tramadol or tramadol/paracetamol decreases pain intensity, produces symptom relief and improves function, but these benefits are small. Adverse events, although reversible and not life threatening, often cause participants to stop taking the medication and could limit tramadol or tramadol plus paracetamol usefulness.

Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in OA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CDSR, and the CCTR. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. All searches were updated in January 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo controlled and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double blinded studies were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1996) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences (SMD) as the measure of effect size. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk ratios (RR).

MAIN RESULTS

Analysis restricted to eight studies with adequate allocation concealment failed to show benefit of glucosamine for pain and WOMAC function. Collectively, the 20 analyzed RCTs found glucosamine favoured placebo with a 28% (change from baseline) improvement in pain (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95, -0.28) and a 21% (change from baseline) improvement in function using the Lequesne index (SMD -0.51 95% CI -0.96, -0.05). However, the results are not uniformly positive, and the reasons for this remain unexplained. WOMAC pain, function and stiffness outcomes did not reach statistical significance. In the 10 RCTs in which the Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior for pain (SMD -1.31, 95% CI -1.99, -0.64) and function using the Lequesne index (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.96, -0.05). Pooled results for pain (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.35, 0.05) and function using the WOMAC index (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18, 0.25) in those RCTs in which a non-Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to placebo did not reach statistical significance. In the four RCTs in which the Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. Two RCTs using the Rotta preparation showed that glucosamine was able to slow radiological progression of OA of the knee over a three year period (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.04, 0.43). Glucosamine was as safe as placebo in terms of the number of subjects reporting adverse reactions (RR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.88, 1.08).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update includes 20 studies with 2570 patients. Pooled results from studies using a non-Rotta preparation or adequate allocation concealment failed to show benefit in pain and WOMAC function while those studies evaluating the Rotta preparation show that glucosamine was superior to placebo in the treatment of pain and functional impairment resulting from symptomatic OA. WOMAC outcomes of pain, stiffness and function did not show a superiority of glucosamine over placebo for both Rotta and non-Rotta preparations of glucosamine. Glucosamine was as safe as placebo.

Treatment of Extraintestinal Manifestations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) occur rather frequently and may be found in up to 30% of patients. However, surprisingly few randomized, controlled studies have been conducted that were specifically aimed at the treatment of EIM of IBD patients. Therefore, most therapies of EIM are empiric or deduced from studies in populations with other type of patients. EIM may be associated with active IBD. Treatment of active IBD is, therefore, the mainstay of treatment of EIM. Lifestyle modification as a means of therapy is a recent subject of study in chronic conditions, such as IBD. Based on epidemiologic and experimental findings, EIM of various tracts can be modified by optimizing alimentary intake, refraining from sedentary lifestyle, and adapting smoking habits. Not many new drugs for treatment of EIM have been developed during the past few years; the role of infliximab has been extended in particular in Crohn's disease-related EIM. Careful consideration of prescribed drugs remains necessary due to potential interaction with the course of IBD.