Féline P B Kroon1, Lennart R A van der Burg2, Sofia Ramiro2, Robert B M Landewé2, Rachelle Buchbinder2, Louise Falzon2, Désirée van der Heijde2. 1. From the Department of Rheumatology, and Department of Gastroenterology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden; Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam; Department of Rheumatology, Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands; Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Malvern, Australia; Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.F.P. Kroon, MD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center; L.R. van der Burg, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Leiden University Medical Center; S. Ramiro, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, and Department of Internal Medicine, Rijnland Medical Center; R.B. Landewé, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and Department of Rheumatology, Atrium Medical Center; R. Buchbinder, MBBS (Hons), PhD, Professor, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University; L. Falzon, MD, PhD, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center; D. van der Heijde, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center. f.kroon.reum@lumc.nl. 2. From the Department of Rheumatology, and Department of Gastroenterology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden; Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam; Department of Rheumatology, Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands; Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Malvern, Australia; Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.F.P. Kroon, MD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center; L.R. van der Burg, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Leiden University Medical Center; S. Ramiro, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, and Department of Internal Medicine, Rijnland Medical Center; R.B. Landewé, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and Department of Rheumatology, Atrium Medical Center; R. Buchbinder, MBBS (Hons), PhD, Professor, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University; L. Falzon, MD, PhD, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center; D. van der Heijde, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Systematic review using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. INCLUSION CRITERIA: randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT (to June 2014), investigating NSAID versus any control for axSpA, and observational studies of longterm effects (≥ 6 mos) of NSAID on radiographic progression or adverse events. Main outcomes were pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index, radiographic progression, number of withdrawals because of adverse events, and number of serious adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCT, 2 quasi-RCT, and 2 cohort studies were included. Twenty-nine RCT and 2 quasi-RCT (n = 4356) were included in pooled analyses [traditional NSAID vs placebo (n = 5), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) vs placebo (n = 3), COX-2 vs traditional NSAID (n = 4), NSAID vs NSAID (n = 24), naproxen vs other NSAID (n = 3), and low- vs high-dose NSAID (n = 5)]. Compared with placebo, both traditional and COX-2 NSAID were consistently more efficacious at 6 weeks and equally safe after 12 weeks. No significant differences in benefits or harms between the 2 NSAID classes and no important differences in benefits or withdrawals because of adverse events between different NSAID were found, especially if studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Single studies suggest NSAID may retard radiographic progression, especially by continuous rather than on-demand NSAID use. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence indicates that both traditional and COX-2 NSAID are efficacious for treating axSpA, and harms are not different from placebo in the short term. Various NSAID are equally effective.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Systematic review using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. INCLUSION CRITERIA: randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT (to June 2014), investigating NSAID versus any control for axSpA, and observational studies of longterm effects (≥ 6 mos) of NSAID on radiographic progression or adverse events. Main outcomes were pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index, radiographic progression, number of withdrawals because of adverse events, and number of serious adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCT, 2 quasi-RCT, and 2 cohort studies were included. Twenty-nine RCT and 2 quasi-RCT (n = 4356) were included in pooled analyses [traditional NSAID vs placebo (n = 5), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) vs placebo (n = 3), COX-2 vs traditional NSAID (n = 4), NSAID vs NSAID (n = 24), naproxen vs other NSAID (n = 3), and low- vs high-dose NSAID (n = 5)]. Compared with placebo, both traditional and COX-2 NSAID were consistently more efficacious at 6 weeks and equally safe after 12 weeks. No significant differences in benefits or harms between the 2 NSAID classes and no important differences in benefits or withdrawals because of adverse events between different NSAID were found, especially if studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Single studies suggest NSAID may retard radiographic progression, especially by continuous rather than on-demand NSAID use. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence indicates that both traditional and COX-2 NSAID are efficacious for treating axSpA, and harms are not different from placebo in the short term. Various NSAID are equally effective.
Authors: U Kiltz; J Braun; A Becker; J-F Chenot; M Dreimann; L Hammel; A Heiligenhaus; K-G Hermann; R Klett; D Krause; K-F Kreitner; U Lange; A Lauterbach; W Mau; R Mössner; U Oberschelp; S Philipp; U Pleyer; M Rudwaleit; E Schneider; T L Schulte; J Sieper; A Stallmach; B Swoboda; M Winking Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.372
Authors: Andrea Regel; Alexandre Sepriano; Xenofon Baraliakos; Désirée van der Heijde; Jürgen Braun; Robert Landewé; Filip Van den Bosch; Louise Falzon; Sofia Ramiro Journal: RMD Open Date: 2017-01-27
Authors: P A C Bakker; S Ramiro; Z Ez-Zaitouni; M van Lunteren; I J Berg; R Landewé; R Ramonda; M van Oosterhout; M Reijnierse; F A van Gaalen; D van der Heijde Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 10.995