The efficacy of etoricoxib vs mefenamic acid in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea: A randomised comparative trial

Celecoxib versus mefenamic acid in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea

Background The objective was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of mefenamic acid and celecoxib in women with primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and to compare the quality of life of study participants pre- and post-treatment. Materials and methods This was a randomized crossover clinical trial conducted among sexually inactive female adults aged 18-25 years with PD. Participants were asked to rate their pain score and answer a validated quality of life questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) before and after consumption of each medication in two menstrual cycles. The effectiveness of celecoxib and mefenamic acid in treating PD was compared with regard to reduction in pain score and the need for medical leave and rescue therapy. Drug tolerability was determined by comparing the occurrence of side effects of both drugs. Quality of life scores pre- and post-intervention were measured and compared. Results Mefenamic acid had a comparable effect to celecoxib in relieving symptoms of PD. Both drugs were equally tolerable and showed similar impacts on quality of life. Conclusions This study demonstrated that mefenamic acid and celecoxib had similar effectiveness in improving pain score and quality of life in women with PD.

Severe enteropathy with villous atrophy in prolonged mefenamic acid users - a currently under-recognized in previously well-recognized complication: Case report and review of literature

RATIONALE

Mefenamic acid-induced enteropathy may be an under-recognized condition because few reported cases and no review of literature to comprehensively describe all reported cases exist. From inception until February 2017, a systematic literature search identified twenty original reports of cases of mefenamic acid-induced enteropathy. Additional five cases were identified at our hospital. All cases were included in the analyses.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Most patients had been regularly taking therapeutic dosages of mefenamic acid for at least three months before symptoms developed. All patients presented with chronic diarrhea with significant weight loss. Approximately one-third of the cases had some degree of anemia and hypoalbuminemia.

DIAGNOSES

Endoscopic findings could range from very mild abnormalities, such as mild atrophic mucosa, to marked abnormalities, such as blunted villi with scalloping appearance in the small intestine and inflamed mucosa with a few superficial ulcers in the ileum and colon. Pathological findings included flattened small intestinal villi and mixed inflammatory infiltrates including eosinophils in lamina propria.

INTERVENTION

After identifying history of prolong mefenamic acid exposure, all patients were prescribed to stop this medication. Nutritional support and substitutional treatment for mefenamic acid were provided as well.

OUTCOMES

All symptoms responded dramatically to drug withdrawal. Some patients could change to use other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) without symptoms reoccurring.

LESSONS

Unlike other traditional NSAIDs, mefenamic acid could induce intestinal villous atrophy. An adequate drug history is crucial to identifying the condition. Protracted diarrhea occurring during treatment should be the indication to cease the medicine promptly.

Graphical displays for effective reporting of evidence quality tables in research syntheses

BACKGROUND

When generating guidelines, quality of the evidence is tabulated to capture its several domains, often using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We developed a graphic display to capture deficiencies, outliers and similarities across comparisons contained in GRADE tables.

METHODS

Based on a systematic literature review capturing the effects of 32 different therapeutic comparisons on dysmenorrhoea, we synthesised evidence quality in tables and graphs. We evaluated time taken to accurately assess evident quality and preference for tables vs. graphs.

RESULTS

The plots provided visually striking displays of strengths and weaknesses of the evidence across the spectrum of comparisons on a single page. Equivalent tabulated information spread over 4 pages. Participants preferred and interpreted graphs quicker and more accurately than tables.

CONCLUSIONS

The graphic approach we developed makes interpreting evidence easier. Large tables are dry and cumbersome to read and assimilate. When guideline statements are accompanied by these plots, they have the scope for improving the credibility of the recommendations made, as the strength of the evidence used can be clearly seen. Further empirical research will establish the place for graphic displays.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea

BACKGROUND

Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs that act by blocking prostaglandin production. They inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase (COX), an enzyme responsible for the formation of prostaglandins. The COX enzyme exists in two forms, COX-1 and COX-2. Traditional NSAIDs are considered 'non-selective' because they inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. More selective NSAIDs that solely target COX-2 enzymes (COX-2-specific inhibitors) were launched in 1999 with the aim of reducing side effects commonly reported in association with NSAIDs, such as indigestion, headaches and drowsiness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in January 2015: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, November 2014 issue), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We checked the abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used inverse variance methods to combine data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 80 randomised controlled trials (5820 women). They compared 20 different NSAIDs (18 non-selective and two COX-2-specific) versus placebo, paracetamol or each other. NSAIDs versus placeboAmong women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.76 to 5.09; 35 RCTs, I(2) = 53%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo achieve moderate or excellent pain relief, between 45% and 53% taking NSAIDs will do so.However, NSAIDs were associated with more adverse effects (overall adverse effects: OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.51, 25 RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence; gastrointestinal adverse effects: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.23, 14 RCTs, I(2) = 30%; neurological adverse effects: OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, seven RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if 10% of women taking placebo experience side effects, between 11% and 14% of women taking NSAIDs will do so. NSAIDs versus other NSAIDsWhen NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain relief or safety. However, the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials. Non-selective NSAIDs versus COX-2-specific selectorsOnly two of the included studies utilised COX-2-specific inhibitors (etoricoxib and celecoxib). There was no evidence that COX-2-specific inhibitors were more effective or tolerable for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea than traditional NSAIDs; however data were very scanty. NSAIDs versus paracetamolNSAIDs appeared to be more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.43, three RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference with regard to adverse effects, though data were very scanty.Most of the studies were commercially funded (59%); a further 31% failed to state their source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs appear to be a very effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the substantial risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. We rated the quality of the evidence as low for most comparisons, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods.

Etoricoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea in Chinese patients: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 120 mg compared with ibuprofen 600 mg qid in the treatment of moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhea in Chinese women.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, two-period, cross-over study randomized healthy, Chinese women ≥18 years of age to etoricoxib 120 mg qd or ibuprofen up to 2400 mg (600 mg qid) upon onset of moderate or severe primary dysmenorrhea symptoms during two menstrual cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was Total Pain Relief score over the first 6 hours (TOPAR6). Secondary endpoints included Sum of Pain Intensity Difference scores over the first 6 hours (SPID6) and Patient's Global Evaluation (GLOBAL) of pain at 6 and 24 hours post initial dose. The primary hypothesis was that etoricoxib would be non-inferior to ibuprofen. Adverse experiences (AE) were monitored and evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were included in this study. Difference in least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) TOPAR6 score for etoricoxib vs. ibuprofen was 0.89 (0.03, 1.76) (p = 0.043). LS mean (95% CI) difference for etoricoxib vs. ibuprofen SPID6, GLOBAL6, and GLOBAL24 were 0.20 (-1.16, 1.57) (p = 0.768), 0.26 (0.07, 0.45) (p = 0.007), and 0.36 (0.17, 0.54) (p < 0.001), respectively. AEs were rare, with the following AEs determined to be drug-related: hypomenorrhea (two patients on etoricoxib) and allergic dermatitis (one patient on ibuprofen). Limitations of the study design include a sample size that is not adequate for evaluation of rare adverse effects, an evaluation period that was limited to 24 hours, and inconsistent frequency of active treatment doses between etoricoxib (once daily) and ibuprofen (up to four times daily).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary objective of the study was met, demonstrating that etoricoxib 120 mg qd was non-inferior to ibuprofen 600 mg qid; further, etoricoxib was statistically superior to ibuprofen 600 mg qid according to the primary endpoint (TOPAR6) and patient global assessments of study medication. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen were generally well tolerated.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea

BACKGROUND

Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs which act by blocking prostaglandin production.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review is to compare nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea versus placebo, versus paracetamol and versus each other, to evaluate their effectiveness and safety.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases to May 2009: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. The National Research Register and the Clinical Trials Register were also searched. Abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Inverse variance methods were used to combine data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-three randomised controlled trials were included. Among women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were significantly more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.50, 95% CI: 3.85, 5.27). There was substantial heterogeneity for this finding (I(2) statistic =53%): exclusion of two outlying studies with no or negligible placebo effect reduced heterogeneity, resulting in an odds ratio of 4.14 (95% CI: 3.52, 4.86, I(2)=40%). NSAIDs were also significantly more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.90, 95% CI:1.05 to 3.44). However, NSAIDS were associated with significantly more overall adverse effects than placebo (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.66). When NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain-relief or safety. However the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs are an effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the significant risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea.