OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized clinical trials evaluating ultramicronised diclofenac, diclofenac, celecoxib, etodolac and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis were identified. A search was conducted in May 2021 through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A network meta-analysis was developed for efficacy outcome related to analgesia measured by the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities tool. In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking was performed to rank the drugs in relation to this outcome.
RESULTS: Twelve randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (UD105) was better than all the others, including ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (UD70). In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking resulted in the following order: 1) ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (100%), 2) ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (80%), 3) celecoxib 200 mg/day (49%), 4) diclofenac 100 mg/day (48%), 5) placebo (19%) and 6) diclofenac 150 mg/day (6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Ultramicronised diclofenac demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other conventional anti-inflammatory drugs and placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
OBJECTIVE: Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.
DESIGN: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.
RESULTS: 122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD=0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (relative risk [RR]=0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR=0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR=0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n=22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n=14,218 participants/group).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.
OBJECTIVE: Despite an extensive body of research on NSAIDs in osteoarthritis, the duration of their efficacy and timeline of adverse event (AE) onset have been understudied. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses from 2 to 26 weeks to characterize the efficacy and AE trajectories of oral NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to May 2018. RCTs assessing the efficacy and/or safety of FDA-approved NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: We included 72 RCTs (26,424 participants). NSAIDs demonstrated moderate, statistically significant effects on pain that peaked at 2 weeks (SMD -0.43 [-0.48, -0.38]), but the magnitude of the effects decreased over time. The results for function were similar. The incidence of GI AEs was significantly higher in NSAID users than placebo users as early as 4 weeks (RR 1.38 [1.21, 1.57]). The incidence of CV AEs in NSAID users was not significantly different from placebo. Most GI and CV AEs were transient and of minor severity.
CONCLUSION: NSAIDs produced significant pain and function improvements that peaked at 2 weeks but decreased over time. The incidence of minor GI and CV AEs consistently rose, reaching significance as early as 4 weeks. Clinicians should weigh the durability of efficacy with the early onset of minor AEs along with patient tolerability and preferences when formulating an NSAID regimen. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Despite an extensive body of research on nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in osteoarthritis, the duration of their efficacy and timeline of adverse event (AE) onset have been understudied. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses from 2 to 26 weeks to characterize the efficacy and AE trajectories of oral NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis.METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and/or safety of Federal Drug Administration-approved NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).RESULTS: We included 72 randomized controlled trials (26,424 participants). NSAIDs demonstrated moderate, statistically significant effects on pain that peaked at 2 weeks (SMD -0.43 [95% CI -0.48, -0.38]), but the magnitude of the effects decreased over time. The results for function were similar. The incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) AEs was significantly higher in NSAID users than placebo users as early as 4 weeks (RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.21, 1.57]). The incidence of cardiovascular (CV) AEs in NSAID users was not significantly different from placebo. Most GI and CV AEs were transient and of minor severity.CONCLUSION: NSAIDs produced significant pain and function improvements that peaked at 2 weeks but decreased over time. The incidence of minor GI and CV AEs consistently rose, reaching significance as early as 4 weeks. Clinicians should weigh the durability of efficacy with the early onset of minor AEs along with patient tolerability and preferences when formulating an NSAID regimen.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with COX-2 inhibitors in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs, drug-related AEs and mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once).
RESULTS: Database searches identified 2149 records from which, after exclusions, 40 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of COX-2 inhibitors in OA was associated with a significant increased risk of drug-related AEs compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.46; I2 = 24%). The risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (including dyspepsia, gastritis and heartburn) was significantly increased with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38; I2 = 0%), particularly for abdominal pain, which increased by 40% with COX-2 inhibitors (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08-1.80; I2 = 0%). The risk of hypertension increased by 45% overall (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01-2.10; I2 = 25%); however, when rofecoxib was removed from the analysis the risk of hypertension in the COX-2 inhibitor group was no longer significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80-1.83; I2 = 20%). The overall risk of heart failure and edema was increased by nearly 70% with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.22-2.31; 0%) and this level of risk did not change appreciably when rofecoxib was excluded (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21-2.29; 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, COX-2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain. We also found an increased risk of cardiovascular AEs with COX-2 inhibitors, namely hypertension, heart failure and edema.
BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.
METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.
RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.
DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.
