Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 May 27:5:10593.
doi: 10.1038/srep10593.

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

Affiliations

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

Chao Zeng et al. Sci Rep. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of studies identification and selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Structure of network formed by interventions and their direct comparisons. The lines between treatment nodes indicate the direct comparisons made within randomized trials.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Network meta-analysis estimates-standard mean difference (SMD) of pain relief and function improvement for three compared groups.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Rankings for three treatments. Graph displays distribution of probabilities for each treatment. X-axis represents the possible rank of each treatment (from the best rank to worse according to the outcomes), Y-axis represents the cumulative probability for each treatment to be the best option, among the best two options, among the best three options, and so on.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Network meta-analysis estimates-odds ratios (OR) of eight kinds of AEs for three compared groups.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Network meta-analysis estimates-odds ratios (OR) of six kinds of GI AEs for three compared groups.

References

    1. Dieppe P. A. & Lohmander L. S. Pathogenesis and management of pain in osteoarthritis. Lancet. 365, 965–973 (2005). - PubMed
    1. Lawrence R. C. et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum. 41, 778–799 (1998). - PubMed
    1. McAlindon T. E. et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22, 363–388 (2014). - PubMed
    1. Brown G. A. AAOS clinical practice guideline: treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based guideline, 2nd edition. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 21, 577–579 (2013). - PubMed
    1. Zarraga I. G. E. & Schwarz E. R. Coxibs and heart disease: what we have learned and what else we need to know. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 49, 1–14 (2007). - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources