Relative efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, celecoxib, and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis : A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials based on patient withdrawal

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Various non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). However, the optimal method for JIA has not yet been developed.

AIM

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the optimal instructions.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CNKI, and Wanfang without restriction for publication date or language at August, 2023. Any RCTs that comparing the effectiveness of NSAIDs with each other or placebo for JIA were included in this network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis was used to rank the treatments. P value less than 0.05 was identified as statistically significant.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs (1127 patients) comparing 8 different instructions including meloxicam (0.125 qd and 0.250 qd), Celecoxib (3 mg/kg bid and 6 mg/kg bid), piroxicam, Naproxen (5.0 mg/kg/d, 7.5 mg/kg/d and 12.5 mg/kg/d), inuprofen (30-40 mg/kg/d), Aspirin (60-80 mg/kg/d, 75 mg/kg/d, and 55 mg/kg/d), Tolmetin (15 mg/kg/d), Rofecoxib, and placebo. There were no significant differences between any two NSAIDs regarding ACR Pedi 30 response. The SUCRA shows that celecoxib (6 mg/kg bid) ranked first (SUCRA, 88.9%), rofecoxib ranked second (SUCRA, 68.1%), Celecoxib (3 mg/kg bid) ranked third (SUCRA, 51.0%). There were no significant differences between any two NSAIDs regarding adverse events. The SUCRA shows that placebo ranked first (SUCRA, 88.2%), piroxicam ranked second (SUCRA, 60.5%), rofecoxib (0.6 mg/kg qd) ranked third (SUCRA, 56.1%), meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg qd) ranked fourth (SUCRA, 56.1%), and rofecoxib (0.3 mg/kg qd) ranked fifth (SUCRA, 56.1%).

CONCLUSION

In summary, celecoxib (6 mg/kg bid) was found to be the most effective NSAID for treating JIA. Rofecoxib, piroxicam, and meloxicam may be safer options, but further research is needed to confirm these findings in larger trials with higher quality studies.

Systemic therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) improve survival compared to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive stage I to III breast cancer. In approximately half of these women, AI are associated with aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS), often described as symmetrical pain and soreness in the joints, musculoskeletal pain and joint stiffness. AIMSS may have significant and prolonged impact on women's quality of life. AIMSS reduces adherence to AI therapy in up to a half of women, potentially compromising breast cancer outcomes. Differing systemic therapies have been investigated for the prevention and treatment of AIMSS, but the effectiveness of these therapies remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic therapies on the prevention or management of AIMSS in women with stage I to III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov registries to September 2020 and the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) Specialised Register to March 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared systemic therapies to a comparator arm. Systemic therapy interventions included all pharmacological therapies, dietary supplements, and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). All comparator arms were allowed including placebo or standard of care (or both) with analgesia alone. Published and non-peer-reviewed studies were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes assessed were pain, stiffness, grip strength, safety data, discontinuation of AI, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), breast cancer-specific quality of life (BCS-QoL), incidence of AIMSS, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). For continuous outcomes, we used vote-counting by reporting how many studies reported a clinically significant benefit within the confidence intervals (CI) of the mean difference (MD) between treatment arms, as determined by the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) for that outcome scale. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 2034 randomised participants. Four studies assessed systemic therapies for the prevention of AIMSS and 13 studies investigated treatment of AIMSS. Due to the variation in systemic therapy studies, including pharmacological, and CAM, or unavailable data, meta-analysis was limited, and only two trials were combined for meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was either low or very low certainty. Prevention studies The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of systemic therapies on pain (from baseline to the end of the intervention; 2 studies, 183 women). The two studies, investigating vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, showed a treatment effect with 95% CIs that did not include an MCID for pain. Systemic therapies may have little to no effect on grip strength (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.17; 1 study, 137 women) or on women continuing to take their AI (RR 0.16, 95% 0.01 to 2.99; 1 study, 147 women). The evidence suggests little to no effect on HRQoL and BCS-QoL from baseline to the end of intervention (the same single study; 44 women, both quality of life outcomes showed a treatment effect with 95% CIs that did include an MCID). The evidence is very uncertain for outcomes assessing incidence of AIMSS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; 2 studies, 240 women) and the safety of systemic therapies (4 studies, 344 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study had a US Food and Drug Administration alert issued for the intervention (cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor) during the study, but there were no serious adverse events in this or any study. There were no data on stiffness, BCSS or OS. Treatment studies The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of systemic therapies on pain from baseline to the end of intervention in the treatment of AIMSS (10 studies, 1099 women). Four studies showed an MCID in pain scores which fell within the 95% CI of the measured effect (vitamin D, bionic tiger bone, Yi Shen Jian Gu granules, calcitonin). Six studies showed a treatment effect with 95% CI that did not include an MCID (vitamin D, testosterone, omega-3 fatty acids, duloxetine, emu oil, cat's claw).  The evidence was very uncertain for the outcomes of change in stiffness (4 studies, 295 women), HRQoL (3 studies, 208 women) and BCS-QoL (2 studies, 147 women) from baseline to the end of intervention. The evidence suggests systemic therapies may have little to no effect on grip strength (1 study, 107 women). The evidence is very uncertain about the safety of systemic therapies (10 studies, 1250 women). There were no grade four/five adverse events reported in any of the studies. The study of duloxetine reported more all-grade adverse events in this treatment group than comparator group. There were no data on the incidence of AIMSS, the number of women continuing to take AI, BCCS or OS from the treatment studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AIMSS are chronic and complex symptoms with a significant impact on women with early breast cancer taking AI. To date, evidence for safe and effective systemic therapies for prevention or treatment of AIMSS has been minimal. Although this review identified 17 studies with 2034 randomised participants, the review was challenging due to the heterogeneous systemic therapy interventions and study methodologies, and the unavailability of certain trial data. Meta-analysis was thus limited and findings of the review were inconclusive. Further research is recommended into systemic therapy for AIMSS, including high-quality adequately powered RCT, comprehensive descriptions of the intervention/placebo, and robust definitions of the condition and the outcomes being studied.

Analgesic Efficacy of Etoricoxib following Third Molar Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy of etoricoxib in comparison with traditional NSAIDs for postoperative pain after third molar surgery.

Methods

The quality of studies found in PubMed and Google Scholar was evaluated with Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data on total consumption of rescue analgesics, number of patients using rescue analgesics, global assessment of study treatments, and adverse effects were extracted exclusively from high-quality clinical trials. Each meta-analysis was performed with the Review Manager Software 5.3 for Windows.

Results

The qualitative analysis showed that etoricoxib has better analgesic activity when compared with ibuprofen (2 clinical trials) and diclofenac (1 clinical trial). A similar analgesic efficacy between etoricoxib and nonselective Cox-2 NSAIDs was informed in 3/8 studies (2 compared to ibuprofen and 1 to naproxen sodium). Moreover, the number of patients requiring rescue analgesics in the postoperative period showed a statistical difference in favor of etoricoxib when compared to NSAIDs.

Conclusion

Etoricoxib significantly reduces the number of patients needing rescue analgesics compared to NSAIDs after third molar surgery.

Monitoring the Clinical Response to an Innovative Transdermal Delivery System for Ibuprofen

We present a phase 1 study that utilizes a crossover design that provides a rapid and relatively inexpensive methodology for evaluating a new transdermal product. The treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) aims to reduce pain and improve function. An innovative magnetophoresis technology has been developed that facilitates transdermal delivery of ibuprofen. The study used measures that were taken over a relatively short time period to monitor the pharmacodynamic response to ibuprofen. Each participant received magnetophoresis-enhanced transdermal ibuprofen or placebo in randomised order, with a five-day washout period. The participants were 24 volunteers with medically diagnosed, painful knee OA. The primary outcome measures were VAS rating of pain on movement and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain and function scores. VAS for pain on movement (p < 0.001), WOMAC pain score (p = 0.004), and WOMAC function score (p = 0.004) were all significantly improved. There was a significant reduction in movement-related pain (p < 0.05) during the first patch application and for the remainder of the study period. The number needed to treat for a 50% reduction in movement related pain was 2.2. The study showed a rapid and significant analgesic effect in response to transdermal ibuprofen. A short trial of this nature can be used for informing the parameters that are required for a major randomised controlled trial.

Gastrointestinal safety of etoricoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

Objective

To ascertain if etoricoxib increases the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events (GAEs) compared with placebo, diclofenac, and naproxen in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Studies were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2017. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that compared etoricoxib with placebo and other active drug for patients with OA or RA and reported data on gastrointestinal safety (which is of interest to patients and clinicians) were included. The follow-up time window for GAEs was defined as within 28 days subsequent to the last dose of study medication. A meta-analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured.

Results

We found nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that included information on gastrointestinal safety during follow-up time. Among them, five RCTs compared etoricoxib with placebo, four RCTs compared etoricoxib with diclofenac, and three RCTs compared etoricoxib with naproxen. Etoricoxib did not increase the risk of GAEs compared with placebo. Compared with diclofenac and naproxen, etoricoxib reduced the GAE risk (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59–0.76; p < 0.00001; 0.59; 0.48–0.72; < 0.00001) during follow-up time.

Conclusions

In patients with OA or RA, etoricoxib did not increase the GAE risk compared with placebo, but reduced the GAE risk effectively compared with diclofenac and naproxen during follow-up time.

Low-grade inflammation as a key mediator of the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) has long been viewed as a degenerative disease of cartilage, but accumulating evidence indicates that inflammation has a critical role in its pathogenesis. Furthermore, we now appreciate that OA pathogenesis involves not only breakdown of cartilage, but also remodelling of the underlying bone, formation of ectopic bone, hypertrophy of the joint capsule, and inflammation of the synovial lining. That is, OA is a disorder of the joint as a whole, with inflammation driving many pathologic changes. The inflammation in OA is distinct from that in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases: it is chronic, comparatively low-grade, and mediated primarily by the innate immune system. Current treatments for OA only control the symptoms, and none has been FDA-approved for the prevention or slowing of disease progression. However, increasing insight into the inflammatory underpinnings of OA holds promise for the development of new, disease-modifying therapies. Indeed, several anti-inflammatory therapies have shown promise in animal models of OA. Further work is needed to identify effective inhibitors of the low-grade inflammation in OA, and to determine whether therapies that target this inflammation can prevent or slow the development and progression of the disease.