Dataset Information

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and bone healing in animal models-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) have excellent anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties and are extensively used to treat post-traumatic or surgical musculoskeletal pain. Although an extensive literature exists on the administration of NSAID on animal bone healing, no systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies that investigate the effect of NSAID administration on bone fracture healing. Objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of NSAIDs administration on bone healing biomechanical and histomorphometric measurements in different animal models after bone fracture surgery.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies to estimate the effect of NSAID administration after bone fracture on healing outcomes. We searched eight databases without limiting the search to starting date up to 1 February 2021 for articles on fractured bone healing in animal models in which NSAID were administered.

Results

Out of 6732 articles screened, 47 were included and 3 common bone healing outcomes were analysed: biomechanical properties (maximum force to break, stiffness, and work-to-failure), micro-computed tomography (μ-CT), and histomorphometric measurements. The studies were generally of low-quality scores because crucial information, especially concerning randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment, was poorly reported. Our results show that the negative effects of NSAID after bone fracture on certain biomechanical properties of the healing bones was not statistically significant in mice compared with other animals, in females compared with males, and in younger compared with older animals.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrated that NSAIDs administration decreased the biomechanical properties of healing bones after fracture surgery in comparison to the control group. Moreover, different effect on certain outcomes was detected among different sites, sex of the animals, and the time of assessment.

Trial registration

Protocol published and registered in SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) in 2017, https://www.radboudumc.nl/getmedia/757ec408-7a9e-4635-8233-ae951effea54/Non-Steroidal-Anti-inflammatory-Drugs-and-bone-healing-in-animal-Models-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis.aspx.

SUBMITTER: Al-Waeli H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8268344 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support. CC leads to progressive functional impairment, with its clinical management complicated and limited therapeutic options available. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on patient-centred outcomes in patients with CC. In 2013, two systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend NSAIDs for clinical management of CC outside of clinical trials. However, clinical trials of multi-component CC interventions have included NSAIDs as an intervention component, so an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for NSAIDs in the treatment of CC is warranted. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL) and three trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) were searched on 16 December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any NSAID (any dose or duration) with a control arm, in adult patients with CC, reporting measures of body weight, body composition, nutrition impact symptoms, inflammation, physical function or fatigue, were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes (determined with patient involvement) were survival, changes in muscle strength, body composition, body weight and quality of life. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Five studies were included, which investigated Indomethacin (n = 1), Ibuprofen (n = 1) and Celecoxib (n = 3). Four studies were judged to be at high risk of bias for all outcomes, with one study raising concerns for most outcomes. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Indomethacin or Ibuprofen is effective or safe for use in patients with CC; RCTs with lower risk of bias are needed. Celecoxib studies indicated it was safe for use in this population at the doses tested (200-400 mg/day) but found contrasting results regarding efficacy, potentially reflecting heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is inadequate evidence to recommend any NSAID for CC. While current clinical trials for CC treatments are shifting towards multi-component interventions, further research to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs alone is necessary if they are to be included in such multi-component interventions. Furthermore, the lack of data on patient-determined primary outcomes in this review highlights the need for patient involvement in clinical trials for CC.