Celecoxib for osteoarthritis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Puljak L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481745 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Celecoxib for osteoarthritis.
Puljak Livia L Marin Ana A Vrdoljak Davorka D Markotic Filipa F Utrobicic Ana A Tugwell Peter P
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20170522
<h4>Background</h4>Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and sa ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study is to compare the long-term cost-utility of imrecoxib and celecoxib for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.MethodsAn economic model was built based on the model from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The simulation was carried out initially for 100 cycles of 3 months each, starting with 10,000 patients. A discount rate of 5% was applied both for cost and utility. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were adopted as the utility indicator, and real-world data from the hospital information systems of 170 hospitals was collected to indicate cost. The relative incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) with imrecoxib and celecoxib were collected from randomized controlled trials. Sensitivity analysis was performed to validate the robustness of the model.ResultsIn the base case analysis (6-month treatment duration, 55 years old and above), imrecoxib was the more cost-effective option compared to celecoxib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,041.14. This finding remained unchanged after varying the treatment duration and the age of the patients. The main drivers of the results were the relative incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), the cost of imrecoxib, and the utility of OA patients without any AEs. Probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that there was a 59.02% probability of imrecoxib as the more cost-effective option, with a threshold of $30,000.ConclusionsAlthough there were uncertainties, imrecoxib was the more cost-effective option compared to celecoxib, with a definite possibility. Due to the limitations of the original model and this study, the results of this study should be adopted with caution.
| S-EPMC8105807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) can minimize the gastrointestinal complications related to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. NAXOZOL is a new combination formulation designed to provide sequential delivery of a non-enteric-coated, immediate-release esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate 20 mg mantle followed by an enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg core. However, there have been no studies comparing NAXOZOL to celecoxib with respect to gastrointestinal tract protection and pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis. This study was undertaken to compare the effects of NAXOZOL and celecoxib with respect to gastrointestinal tract protection and pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS:The randomized enrolled patients were divided into two treatment groups: a NAXOZOL group and a celecoxib group. All participants received treatments (NAXOZOL, 500/20 mg (naproxen 500 mg, esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate 20 mg) twice per day versus celecoxib, 200 mg daily) on a 1:1 allocation basis for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ) score used for non-inferiority testing. Secondary outcome measures included the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, European Quality of Life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale and the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS). Other outcome measures included the use of supplementary or rescue drugs, and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS:The baseline-adjusted LDQ scores immediately after 12 weeks of treatment in NAXOZOL group were not inferior to those in celecoxib group. The overall change in the baseline-adjusted GSRS score, VAS score, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS was not different between the two groups. The usage of supplementary drugs and the drug-related incidence of adverse events were not different. However, the days to use rescue drug were longer in celecoxib group than in NAXOZOL group. CONCLUSION:NAXOZOL was not inferior to celecoxib in protecting the gastrointestinal tract and providing pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis.
| S-EPMC6984721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe cost-effectiveness of the recently-introduced generic celecoxib in knee OA has not been examined.MethodWe used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of generic celecoxib in persons with knee OA. We examined eight treatment strategies consisting of generic celecoxib, over-the-counter (OTC) naproxen, or prescription naproxen, with or without prescription or OTC proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. In the base case, we assumed that annual cost was $130 for OTC naproxen, $360 for prescription naproxen, and $880 for generic celecoxib. We considered a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and discounted costs and benefits at 3% annually. In sensitivity analyses we varied celecoxib toxicity, discontinuation, cost, and pain level.ResultsIn the base case analysis of the high pain cohort (WOMAC 50), celecoxib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $284,630/QALY compared with OTC naproxen. Only under highly favorable cost, toxicity, and discontinuation assumptions (e.g., annual cost below $360, combined with a reduction in the cardiovascular (CV) event rates below baseline values) was celecoxib likely to be cost-effective. Celecoxib might also be cost-effective at an annual cost of $600 if CV toxicity were eliminated completely. In subjects with moderate pain (WOMAC 30), at the base case CV event rate of 0.2%, generic celecoxib was only cost-effective at the lowest plausible cost ($190).ConclusionIn knee OA patients with no comorbidities, generic celecoxib is not cost-effective at its current price.
| S-EPMC6334297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, with intra-articular (IA) delivery of therapeutics being the current best option to treat pain and inflammation. However, IA delivery is challenging due to the rapid clearance of therapeutics from the joint and the need for repeated injections. Thus, there is a need for long-acting delivery systems that increase the drug retention time in joints with the capacity to penetrate OA cartilage. As pharmaceutical utility also demands that this is achieved using biocompatible materials that provide colloidal stability, our aim was to develop a nanoparticle (NP) delivery system loaded with the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib that can meet these criteria. We devised a reproducible and economical method to synthesize the colloidally stable albumin NPs loaded with celecoxib without the use of any of the following conditions: high temperatures at which albumin denaturation occurs, polymer coatings, oils, Class 1/2 solvents, and chemical protein cross-linkers. The spherical NP suspensions were biocompatible, monodisperse with average diameters of 72 nm (ideal for OA cartilage penetration), and they were stable over 6 months at 4 °C. Moreover, the NPs loaded celecoxib at higher levels than those required for the therapeutic response in arthritic joints. For these reasons, they are the first of their kind. Labeled NPs were internalized by primary human articular chondrocytes cultured from the knee joints of OA patients. The NPs reduced the concentration of inflammatory mediator prostaglandin E2 released by the primaries, an indication of retained bioactivity following NP synthesis. Similar results were observed in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated human THP-1 monocytes. The IA administration of these NPs is expected to avoid side-effects associated with oral administration of celecoxib and to maintain a high local concentration in the knee joint over a sustained period. They are now ready for evaluation by IA administration in animal models of OA.
| S-EPMC10982941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the cardiovascular (CV) risk of celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients compared with the risk in those prescribed other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), no intervention or placebo-controlled patients.MethodsThe following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Nation Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and the Chongqing VIP from inception to April 1, 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of celecoxib that presented data on serious cardiovascular events among KOA patients will be included. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and assessment of risk bias will be performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios and correlative 95% confidence intervals will be calculated to present the association between the celecoxib and CV risk using Review Manager version 5.3 when there is sufficient available data.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval. The results of this review may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated at relevant conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020166721.
| S-EPMC7440337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib compared to non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials of oral celecoxib compared with a non-selective NSAID or placebo in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients. We conducted searches in EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk-of-bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The effect size was presented as a risk ratio with their 95% confidence interval.ResultsUntil July 22nd, 2021, our search identified 6279 records from which, after exclusions, 21 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled risk ratio for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration cardiovascular events for celecoxib compared with any non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.00). The pooled risk ratio for all-cause mortality for celecoxib compared with non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.98). The cardiovascular mortality rate of celecoxib was lower than non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (risk ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.99). There was no significant difference between celecoxib and non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo in the risk of other cardiovascular events.ConclusionCelecoxib is relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients, independent of dose or duration. But it remains uncertain whether this would remain the same in patients treated with aspirin and patients with established cardiovascular diseases.
| S-EPMC8691614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common chronic muscular diseases in old people. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing the use of celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in KOA patients were retrieved from each database from the date of database inception to September 2019. The outcome measurements were the treatment effect, visual analog scale (VAS) score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and complication rate. The pooled data were evaluated with Review Manager 5.3.5.ResultsThe literature will provide a high-quality analysis of the current evidence supporting celecoxib for KOA based on various comprehensive assessments including the treatment effect, visual analog scale (VAS) score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and complication rate.ConclusionThis proposed systematic review will provide up-to-date evidence to assess the effect of celecoxib in the treatment for patients with KOA. RESEARCH REGISTRY REGISTRATION NUMBER:: reviewregistry827.
| S-EPMC7220482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Major hallmarks of osteoarthritis (OA) are cartilage degeneration, inflammation and osteophyte formation. COX-2 inhibitors counteract inflammation-related pain, but their prolonged oral use entails the risk for side effects. Local and prolonged administration in biocompatible and degradable drug delivery biomaterials could offer an efficient and safe treatment for the long-term management of OA symptoms. Therefore, we evaluated the disease-modifying effects and the optimal dose of polyesteramide microspheres delivering the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in a rat OA model. Four weeks after OA induction by anterior cruciate ligament transection and partial medial meniscectomy, 8-week-old female rats (n = 6/group) were injected intra-articular with celecoxib-loaded microspheres at three dosages (0.03, 0.23 or 0.39 mg). Unloaded microspheres served as control. During the 16-week follow-up, static weight bearing and plasma celecoxib concentrations were monitored. Post-mortem, micro-computed tomography and knee joint histology determined progression of synovitis, osteophyte formation, subchondral bone changes, and cartilage integrity. Systemic celecoxib levels were below the detection limit 6 days upon delivery. Systemic and local adverse effects were absent. Local delivery of celecoxib reduced the formation of osteophytes, subchondral sclerosis, bone cysts and calcified loose bodies, and reduced synovial inflammation, while cartilage histology was unaffected. Even though the effects on pain could not be evualated directly in the current model, our results suggest the application of celecoxib-loaded microspheres holds promise as novel, safe and effective treatment for inflammation and pain in OA.
| S-EPMC6058666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chondroitin sulfate 800 mg/day (CS) pharmaceutical-grade in the management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis consistent with the European Medicines Agency guideline.A prospective, randomised, 6-month, 3-arm, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo and celecoxib (200 mg/day)-controlled trial assessing changes in pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and in the Lequesne Index (LI) as coprimary endpoints. Minimal-Clinically Important Improvement (MCII), Patient-Acceptable Symptoms State (PASS) were used as secondary endpoints.604 patients (knee osteoarthritis) diagnosed according to American College of Rheumalogy (ACR) criteria, recruited in five European countries and followed for 182 days. CS and celecoxib showed a greater significant reduction in pain and LI than placebo. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, pain reduction in VAS at day 182 in the CS group (-42.6 mm) and in celecoxib group (-39.5 mm) was significantly greater than the placebo group (-33.3 mm) (p=0.001 for CS and p=0.009 for celecoxib), while no difference observed between CS and celecoxib. Similar trend for the LI, as reduction in this metric in the CS group (-4.7) and celecoxib group (-4.6) was significantly greater than the placebo group (-3.7) (p=0.023 for CS and p=0.015 for celecoxib), no difference was observed between CS and celecoxib. Both secondary endpoints (MCII and PASS) at day 182 improved significantly in the CS and celecoxib groups. All treatments demonstrated excellent safety profiles.A 800 mg/day pharmaceutical-grade CS is superior to placebo and similar to celecoxib in reducing pain and improving function over 6 months in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This formulation of CS should be considered a first-line treatment in the medical management of knee OA.
| S-EPMC5561371 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate whether diacerein has comparable efficacy with celecoxib in pain reduction for treatment in symptomatic knee OA patients.MethodsThis randomized double-blind multicentre non-inferiority trial evaluated diacerein vs celecoxib treatment in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 and pain scoring ≥4 (10-cm VAS). Patients were randomized to 6 months of treatment with diacerein 50 mg (n = 187) once daily for 1 month and twice daily thereafter, or celecoxib 200 mg (n = 193) once daily. The primary outcome was the change in WOMAC pain score (0-50 cm) at 6 months, and the secondary outcomes were WOMAC sub-scores, VAS pain score, and the OMERACT-OARSI responder rate.ResultsIn the per protocol population, the adjusted mean change from baseline in the WOMAC pain score was -11.1 ( 0.9) with diacerein (n = 140) and -11.8 (0.9) with celecoxib (n = 148). The intergroup difference was 0.7 (95% CI: -1.8, 3.2; P = 0.597), meeting the non-inferiority margin. Supportive analysis of the intention-to-treat population gave similar results. Other outcomes showed no significant difference between treatment groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low and balanced between groups, but a greater incidence of diarrhoea occurred with diacerein (10.2% vs 3.7%). Diarrhoea was considered mild-to-moderate in all but one case with complete resolution.ConclusionsDiacerein was non-inferior to celecoxib in reducing knee OA pain and improving physical function. Diacerein also demonstrated a good safety profile.Trial registrationA multicentre study on the effect of DIacerein on Structure and Symptoms vs Celecoxib in Osteoarthritis is a National Institutes of Health (NCT02688400) and European Clinical Trial Database (2015-002933-23) registered phase III (Canada) or IV (Europe) study.
| S-EPMC7733720 | biostudies-literature