RETRACTED: Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

Da Costa, Bruno R; Reichenbach, Stephan; Keller, Noah; Nartey, Linda; Wandel, Simon; Jüni, Peter; Trelle, Sven (2016). RETRACTED: Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis. Lancet, 387(10033), pp. 2093-2105. Elsevier 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30002-2

WarningThere is a more recent version of this item available.
[img] Text
DaCosta Lancet 2016.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (567kB) | Request a copy

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose.

FINDINGS

We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis.

INTERPRETATION

On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Department of Clinical Research (DCR)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Medical Education > Institute of General Practice and Primary Care (BIHAM)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Dermatology, Urology, Rheumatology, Nephrology, Osteoporosis (DURN) > Clinic of Rheumatology and Immunology

UniBE Contributor:

Da Costa, Bruno, Reichenbach, Stephan, Keller, Noah Silvan, Nartey Stuber, Linda, Jüni, Peter, Trelle, Sven

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services

ISSN:

0140-6736

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Doris Kopp Heim

Date Deposited:

24 Mar 2016 13:40

Last Modified:

20 Feb 2024 14:17

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30002-2

PubMed ID:

26997557

Additional Information:

Da Costa and Reichenbach contributed equally to this work.

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.80341

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/80341

Available Versions of this Item

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback