OBJECTIVE: To obtain a better quantitative and qualitative estimate of the effect of tenoxicam (Tx) compared to piroxicam (Px), diclofenac (Dcl) and indomethacin (Ind) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Relevant studies were identified using computerized Medline search, manual search of cited references and correspondence with investigators, colleagues and the manufacturer of Tx. Once the studies were selected and chosen on the basis of predetermined methodologic criteria, the required data were extracted by 2 authors, independently. Eighteen studies met the required eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses were undertaken on 12 studies of Tx vs Px, 3 studies of Tx vs Dcl, and 2 studies of Tx vs Ind. Efficacy was measured in 2 ways: (1) physician global rating scale and (2) pain scale. Safety was measured in 3 ways: (1) physician global rating scale, (2) number of patients with adverse events, and (3) dropouts due to adverse events. RESULTS: The following findings of the meta-analysis were statistically significant: In Tx vs Px comparisons, efficacy-(1), safety-(1) and safety-(3) were all better with Tx; in Tx vs Ind comparisons, safety-(1) and safety-(2) were better with Tx. All other findings showed no statistically significant differences between Tx and the comparison drug. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Px, Tx performs better on physician assessment of efficacy and tolerability, but the other comparisons remain inconclusive. Compared to Dcl, there appears not to be a difference. Compared to Ind, Tx is safer.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain a better quantitative and qualitative estimate of the effect of tenoxicam (Tx) compared to piroxicam (Px), diclofenac (Dcl) and indomethacin (Ind) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Relevant studies were identified using computerized Medline search, manual search of cited references and correspondence with investigators, colleagues and the manufacturer of Tx. Once the studies were selected and chosen on the basis of predetermined methodologic criteria, the required data were extracted by 2 authors, independently. Eighteen studies met the required eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses were undertaken on 12 studies of Tx vs Px, 3 studies of Tx vs Dcl, and 2 studies of Tx vs Ind. Efficacy was measured in 2 ways: (1) physician global rating scale and (2) pain scale. Safety was measured in 3 ways: (1) physician global rating scale, (2) number of patients with adverse events, and (3) dropouts due to adverse events. RESULTS: The following findings of the meta-analysis were statistically significant: In Tx vs Px comparisons, efficacy-(1), safety-(1) and safety-(3) were all better with Tx; in Tx vs Ind comparisons, safety-(1) and safety-(2) were better with Tx. All other findings showed no statistically significant differences between Tx and the comparison drug. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Px, Tx performs better on physician assessment of efficacy and tolerability, but the other comparisons remain inconclusive. Compared to Dcl, there appears not to be a difference. Compared to Ind, Tx is safer.