Dataset Information

Comparison between 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID oral celecoxib in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis.

ABSTRACT: This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of 100 mg BID and 200 mg QD oral celecoxib in the treatment of OA of the knee or hip. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through from inception to August 2014. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine direct and indirect evidences on treatment effectiveness and safety. A total of 24 RCTs covering 11696 patients were included. For the comparison in between the two dosage regimens, 100 mg BID oral celecoxib exhibited a greater probability to be the preferred one either in terms of pain intensity or function at the last follow-up time point. For total gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs), both of the two dosage regimens demonstrated a higher incidence compared to the placebo group. Further analyses of GI AEs revealed that only 200 mg QD was associated with a significantly higher risk of abdominal pain when compared with placebo. Furthermore, 100 mg BID showed a significantly lower incidence of skin AEs when compared with 200 mg QD and placebo. Maybe 100 mg BID should be considered as the preferred dosage regimen in the treatment of knee or hip OA.

SUBMITTER: Zeng C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4445037 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib, a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, has been demonstrated in previous studies of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). As it is important to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of treatments for a chronic disease such as OA, the present study compared the effects of lumiracoxib at doses of 100 mg once daily (o.d.) and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with those of celecoxib 200 mg o.d. on retention on treatment over 1 year.MethodsIn this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, male and female patients (aged at least 40 years) with symptomatic primary OA of the hip, knee, hand or spine were randomised (1:2:1) to lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. (n = 755), lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. (n = 1,519) or celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 758). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of lumiracoxib at either dose compared with celecoxib 200 mg o.d. with respect to the 1-year retention on treatment rate. Secondary outcome variables included OA pain in the target joint, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, Short Arthritis assessment Scale (SAS) total score, rescue medication use, and safety and tolerability.ResultsRetention rates at 1 year were similar for the lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. and celecoxib 200 mg o.d. groups (46.9% vs 47.5% vs 45.3%, respectively). It was demonstrated that retention on treatment with lumiracoxib at either dose was non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg o.d. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves for the probability of premature discontinuation from the study for any reason were similar across the treatment groups. All three treatments generally yielded comparable results for the secondary efficacy variables and all treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionLong-term treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., the recommended dose for OA, was as effective and well tolerated as celecoxib 200 mg o.d. in patients with OA.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00145301.

Project description:ImportanceDigital care platforms have been introduced, but there is limited evidence for their efficacy compared with traditional face-to-face treatment modalities.ObjectiveTo compare mean pain reduction among individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip who underwent face-to-face vs digital first-line intervention.Design, setting, and participantsThis registry-based cohort study included all persons with knee or hip osteoarthritis who participated in structured first-line treatment for osteoarthritis in a primary care setting in Sweden. Inclusion criteria were as follows: the treatment was delivered face-to-face or digitally between April 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019; patients provided 3-month follow-up data for pain; and patients had program adherence of at least 80%. Data analysis was conducted in March 2021.ExposuresParticipants completed a 3-month intervention, including education and exercise for hip or knee osteoarthritis, with program adherence of 80% or higher, delivered face-to-face or by a digital application.Main outcomes and measuresDifference in change in joint pain (11-point numeric rating scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10, the worst possible pain) between baseline and 3-month follow-up between the 2 intervention modalities. A minimal clinically important difference in pain change between groups was predefined as 1 point. Secondary outcomes were walking difficulties, health-related quality of life, willingness to undergo joint surgery, and fear avoidance behavior.ResultsA total of 6946 participants (mean [SD] age, 67 [9] years; 4952 [71%] women; 4424 [64%] knee OA; 2504 [36%] hip OA) were included, with 4237 (61%) receiving face-to-face treatment and 2709 (39%) receiving digital treatment. Both the face-to-face (mean change, -1.10 [95% CI -1.17 to -1.02] points) and digital interventions (mean change, -1.87 [95% CI, -1.94 to -1.79] points) resulted in a clinically important pain reduction at 3 months. Participants in the digitally delivered intervention experienced a larger estimated improvement at 3 months (adjusted mean difference, -0.93 [95% CI, -1.04 to -0.81] points). Results of secondary outcomes were broadly consistent with main outcome.Conclusions and relevanceThis Swedish national registry-based cohort study showed that people with knee or hip OA participating in first-line intervention experienced clinically relevant improvements in pain, whether delivered face-to-face or digitally. The increased benefit of digital delivery compared with face-to-face delivery was of uncertain clinical importance.

Project description:Reduced external knee adduction moments in the second half of stance after total hip replacement have been reported in hip osteoarthritis patients. This reduction is thought to shift the load from the medial to the lateral knee compartment and as such increase the risk for knee osteoarthritis. The knee adduction moment is a surrogate for the load distribution between the medial and lateral compartments of the knee and not a valid measure for the tibiofemoral contact forces which are the result of externally applied forces and muscle forces. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the distribution of the tibiofemoral contact forces over the knee compartments in unilateral hip osteoarthritis patients 1 year after receiving a primary total hip replacement differs from healthy controls. Musculoskeletal modeling on gait was performed in OpenSim using the detailed knee model of Lerner et al. (2015) for 19 patients as well as for 15 healthy controls of similar age. Knee adduction moments were calculated by the inverse dynamics analysis, medial and lateral tibiofemoral contact forces with the joint reaction force analysis. Moments and contact forces of patients and controls were compared using Statistical Parametric Mapping two-sample t-tests. Knee adduction moments and medial tibiofemoral contact forces of both the ipsi- and contralateral leg were not significantly different compared to healthy controls. The contralateral leg showed 14% higher medial tibiofemoral contact forces compared to the ipsilateral (operated) leg during the second half of stance. During the first half of stance, the lateral tibiofemoral contact force of the contralateral leg was 39% lower and the ratio 32% lower compared to healthy controls. In contrast, during the second half of stance the forces were significantly higher (39 and 26%, respectively) compared to healthy controls. The higher ratio indicates a changed distribution whereas the increased lateral tibiofemoral contact forces indicate a higher lateral knee joint loading in the contralateral leg in OA patients after total hip replacement (THR). Musculoskeletal modeling using a detailed knee model can be useful to detect differences in the load distribution between the medial and lateral knee compartment which cannot be verified with the knee adduction moment.

Dataset Information

Comparison between 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID oral celecoxib in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets