4.6 Review

Disease-modifying effects of COX-2 selective inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs in osteoarthritis: a systematic review

期刊

OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 1263-1273

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.05.021

关键词

Celecoxib; Disease-modifying; NSAIDs; Osteoarthritis

资金

  1. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a potentially disabling disease whose progression is dependent on several risk factors. OA management usually involves the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that are the primary pharmacological treatments of choice. However, NSAIDs have often been associated with unwanted side effects. Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitors, such as celecoxib, have been successfully used as an alternative in the past for OA treatment and have demonstrated fewer side effects. While abundant data are available for the clinical efficacy of drugs used for OA treatment, little is known about the disease-modifying effects of these agents. A previous review published by Zweers et al. (2010) assessed the available literature between 1990 and 2010 on the disease-modifying effects of celecoxib. In the present review, we aimed to update the existing evidence and identify evolving concepts relating to the disease-modifying effects of not just celecoxib, but also other NSAIDs. We conducted a review of the literature published from 2010 to 2016 dealing with the effects, especially disease-modifying effects, of NSAIDs on cartilage, synovium, and bone in OA patients. Our results showthat celecoxib was the most commonly used drug in papers that presented data on disease-modifying effects of NSAIDs. Further, these effects appeared to be mediated through the regulation of prostaglandins, cytokines, and direct changes to tissues. Additional studies should be carried out to assess the disease-modifying properties of NSAIDs in greater detail. (c) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据