Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced adverse effects in dogs.

Año 2013
Revista Journal of veterinary internal medicine / American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Enlaces DOI , Pubmed

Sin referencias

Cargando información sobre las referencias
Mostrar resumen

The aim of this systematic review was to identify, assess, and critically evaluate the quality of evidence of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced adverse effects in dogs. Original prospective studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English (1990-2012) that reported data on the safety of NSAIDs administration in dogs were searched. For each study, design type (I, II, III, or IV) and assessment of quality (+, Ø, -) were rated. For each drug, quantity and consistency rating (***, **, *) and strength of evidence (high, moderate, low, or extremely low) were identified and evaluated. The strength of evidence was defined in terms of how applicable and relevant the conclusions were to the target population. Sixty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five (55%) research studies and 29 (45%) clinical trials were identified. A high strength of evidence existed for carprofen, firocoxib, and meloxicam; moderate for deracoxib, ketoprofen, and robenacoxib; and low for etodolac. Quality and consistency rating were as follows: carprofen (***/***), deracoxib (**/***), etodolac (*/unable to rate), firocoxib (***/**), ketoprofen (**/***), meloxicam (***/***), and robenacoxib (**/**), respectively. Adverse effects were detected in 35 studies (55%) and commonly included vomiting, diarrhea, and anorexia. Three studies (5%) reported a power analysis related to adverse effects of ≥80%. In randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded studies (n = 25, 39%), the incidence of adverse effects was not statistically different between treated and control dogs. Finally, most studies were not appropriately designed to determine the safety of NSAIDs, and involved a healthy nongeriatric population of research dogs.

Mostrar resumen

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Systematic review of clinical trials of treatments for osteoarthritis in dogs.

Año 2007
Revista Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Enlaces DOI , Pubmed
Cargando información sobre las referencias
Mostrar resumen

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.

Mostrar resumen

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: systematic review of population-based controlled observational studies.

Año 2011
Autores McGettigan P , Henry D
Revista PLoS medicine
Enlaces DOI , Pubmed , PMC

Sin referencias

Este artículo está incluido en 1 Resumen estructurado de revisiones sistemáticas 0 Resúmenes estructurados de revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
Mostrar resumen

BACKGROUND:

Randomised trials have highlighted the cardiovascular risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high doses and sometimes atypical settings. Here, we provide estimates of the comparative risks with individual NSAIDs at typical doses in community settings.

METHODS AND FINDINGS:

We performed a systematic review of community-based controlled observational studies. We conducted comprehensive literature searches, extracted adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates, and pooled the estimates for major cardiovascular events associated with use of individual NSAIDs, in different doses, and in populations with low and high background risks of cardiovascular events. We also compared individual drugs in pair-wise (within study) analyses, generating ratios of RRs (RRRs). Thirty case-control studies included 184,946 cardiovascular events, and 21 cohort studies described outcomes in >2.7 million exposed individuals. Of the extensively studied drugs (ten or more studies), the highest overall risks were seen with rofecoxib, 1.45 (95% CI 1.33, 1.59), and diclofenac, 1.40 (1.27, 1.55), and the lowest with ibuprofen, 1.18 (1.11, 1.25), and naproxen, 1.09 (1.02, 1.16). In a sub-set of studies, risk was elevated with low doses of rofecoxib, 1.37 (1.20, 1.57), celecoxib, 1.26 (1.09, 1.47), and diclofenac, 1.22 (1.12, 1.33), and rose in each case with higher doses. Ibuprofen risk was seen only with higher doses. Naproxen was risk-neutral at all doses. Of the less studied drugs etoricoxib, 2.05 (1.45, 2.88), etodolac, 1.55 (1.28, 1.87), and indomethacin, 1.30 (1.19, 1.41), had the highest risks. In pair-wise comparisons, etoricoxib had a higher RR than ibuprofen, RRR = 1.68 (99% CI 1.14, 2.49), and naproxen, RRR = 1.75 (1.16, 2.64); etodolac was not significantly different from naproxen and ibuprofen. Naproxen had a significantly lower risk than ibuprofen, RRR = 0.92 (0.87, 0.99). RR estimates were constant with different background risks for cardiovascular disease and rose early in the course of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS:

This review suggests that among widely used NSAIDs, naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen are least likely to increase cardiovascular risk. Diclofenac in doses available without prescription elevates risk. The data for etoricoxib were sparse, but in pair-wise comparisons this drug had a significantly higher RR than naproxen or ibuprofen. Indomethacin is an older, rather toxic drug, and the evidence on cardiovascular risk casts doubt on its continued clinical use. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Mostrar resumen