Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the knee.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2):CD000142CD

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there is a difference in the relative efficacy of individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline (1966-1995) and Bids Embase (Jan-Dec, 1980-1995). The searches were limited to publications in the English language, and were last perfomed in November 1996. We used modified Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify all randomised controlled trials. The MeSH heading osteoarthritis was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs licensed in the UK for the management of OA in general practice. The search of Embase used the term "osteoarthritis" if present in the abstract, title or keywords, and was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs, only if they were mentioned in the title, abstract or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All double blind, randomised controlled trials, in the English language, comparing the efficacy of two non-aspirin NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee, were selected. Only trials with subjects aged 16 years and over, with clinical and/or radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of OA knee were included. Studies which compared one "trial" NSAID with one "reference" NSAID were included provided they were non-aspirin NSAIDs available in the UK and were licensed for the treatment of OA by general practitioners. Trials which were placebo-controlled and which also involved the comparison of two NSAIDs were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodological design of each study was scored according to a pre-determined system. The three main outcome measures of pain, physical function and patient global assessment were chosen based on the core set agreed upon by OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials). These were used to determine the power of each trial. The equivalency of NSAID doses was calculated using the percentage of the recommended maximum daily dose. Sample size estimates for the detection of clinically relevant changes in outcome measures used in the assessment of OA knee were used for power calculations. These calculations were performed to determine whether the trials were of a sufficient size to detect clinically relevant differences which were statistically significant. The calculations incorporate estimates of standard deviation, and minimum, median and maximum differences (delta) between drugs which are deemed to be clinically important. The number of "withdrawals due to lack of efficacy" was also selected as an outcome measure for this review. The Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where possible. The results of studies which compared the same trial and reference NSAIDs were combined where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 1151 trials identified by the search strategy, 22 involved knee osteoarthritis only. Sixteen of these trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were entered in the review. Eight NSAIDs were represented in these trials. Etodolac was represented in 11 trials. The reference NSAID in these trials was piroxicam (n=3), naproxen(n=3), diclofenac (n=3), indomethacin (n=1), and, nabumetone (n=1). The reported methodological design of the trials was poor, with a median score of 3 (out of a maximum of 8). The results of the trials comparing the same trial and reference NSAIDs were pooled for the outcome "withdrawal due to lack of efficacy". For the comparison, etodolac vesus piroxicam, the odds ratio favoured etodolac i.e. patients receiving etodolac were less likely to withdraw due to lack of efficacy. The dose of etodolac used in each of these three studies, however, was greater than the corresponding dose of piroxicam (based on percentage maximum daily dose). The significance of these results is therefore questionable. For the comparisons etodolac versus diclofenac, and etodolac versus naproxen, there were no clear differences betw

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Whiteladies Road, Bristol, UK, BS8 2PR. m.c.watson@bris.ac.ukNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

10796306

Citation

Watson, M C., et al. "Non-aspirin, Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Osteoarthritis of the Knee." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2000, p. CD000142.
Watson MC, Brookes ST, Kirwan JR, et al. Non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000.
Watson, M. C., Brookes, S. T., Kirwan, J. R., & Faulkner, A. (2000). Non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the knee. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), p. CD000142.
Watson MC, et al. Non-aspirin, Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2)CD000142. PubMed PMID: 10796306.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the knee. AU - Watson,M C, AU - Brookes,S T, AU - Kirwan,J R, AU - Faulkner,A, PY - 2000/5/5/pubmed PY - 2000/7/8/medline PY - 2000/5/5/entrez SP - CD000142 EP - CD000142 JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews JO - Cochrane Database Syst Rev IS - 2 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is a difference in the relative efficacy of individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline (1966-1995) and Bids Embase (Jan-Dec, 1980-1995). The searches were limited to publications in the English language, and were last perfomed in November 1996. We used modified Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify all randomised controlled trials. The MeSH heading osteoarthritis was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs licensed in the UK for the management of OA in general practice. The search of Embase used the term "osteoarthritis" if present in the abstract, title or keywords, and was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs, only if they were mentioned in the title, abstract or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA: All double blind, randomised controlled trials, in the English language, comparing the efficacy of two non-aspirin NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee, were selected. Only trials with subjects aged 16 years and over, with clinical and/or radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of OA knee were included. Studies which compared one "trial" NSAID with one "reference" NSAID were included provided they were non-aspirin NSAIDs available in the UK and were licensed for the treatment of OA by general practitioners. Trials which were placebo-controlled and which also involved the comparison of two NSAIDs were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological design of each study was scored according to a pre-determined system. The three main outcome measures of pain, physical function and patient global assessment were chosen based on the core set agreed upon by OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials). These were used to determine the power of each trial. The equivalency of NSAID doses was calculated using the percentage of the recommended maximum daily dose. Sample size estimates for the detection of clinically relevant changes in outcome measures used in the assessment of OA knee were used for power calculations. These calculations were performed to determine whether the trials were of a sufficient size to detect clinically relevant differences which were statistically significant. The calculations incorporate estimates of standard deviation, and minimum, median and maximum differences (delta) between drugs which are deemed to be clinically important. The number of "withdrawals due to lack of efficacy" was also selected as an outcome measure for this review. The Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where possible. The results of studies which compared the same trial and reference NSAIDs were combined where possible. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1151 trials identified by the search strategy, 22 involved knee osteoarthritis only. Sixteen of these trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were entered in the review. Eight NSAIDs were represented in these trials. Etodolac was represented in 11 trials. The reference NSAID in these trials was piroxicam (n=3), naproxen(n=3), diclofenac (n=3), indomethacin (n=1), and, nabumetone (n=1). The reported methodological design of the trials was poor, with a median score of 3 (out of a maximum of 8). The results of the trials comparing the same trial and reference NSAIDs were pooled for the outcome "withdrawal due to lack of efficacy". For the comparison, etodolac vesus piroxicam, the odds ratio favoured etodolac i.e. patients receiving etodolac were less likely to withdraw due to lack of efficacy. The dose of etodolac used in each of these three studies, however, was greater than the corresponding dose of piroxicam (based on percentage maximum daily dose). The significance of these results is therefore questionable. For the comparisons etodolac versus diclofenac, and etodolac versus naproxen, there were no clear differences betw SN - 1469-493X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/10796306/Non_aspirin_non_steroidal_anti_inflammatory_drugs_for_osteoarthritis_of_the_knee_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000142 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -