Peter C Gøtzsche1. 1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: alternative analgesics, H(2) blockers, misoprostol, NSAIDs (systemic, topical, differences in efficacy between, dose-response relationship of), proton pump inhibitors.
INTRODUCTION: NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: alternative analgesics, H(2) blockers, misoprostol, NSAIDs (systemic, topical, differences in efficacy between, dose-response relationship of), proton pump inhibitors.
Authors: Robert S Bresalier; Robert S Sandler; Hui Quan; James A Bolognese; Bettina Oxenius; Kevin Horgan; Christopher Lines; Robert Riddell; Dion Morton; Angel Lanas; Marvin A Konstam; John A Baron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N D Yeomans; Z Tulassay; L Juhász; I Rácz; J M Howard; C J van Rensburg; A J Swannell; C J Hawkey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-03-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C J Hawkey; J A Karrasch; L Szczepañski; D G Walker; A Barkun; A J Swannell; N D Yeomans Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-03-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter Jüni; Linda Nartey; Stephan Reichenbach; Rebekka Sterchi; Paul A Dieppe; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Dec 4-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D Henry; L L Lim; L A Garcia Rodriguez; S Perez Gutthann; J L Carson; M Griffin; R Savage; R Logan; Y Moride; C Hawkey; S Hill; J T Fries Journal: BMJ Date: 1996-06-22