Myers Julie, Wielage Ronald C, Han Baoguang, Price Karen, Gahn James, Paget Marie-Ange, Happich Michael
Medical Decision Modeling, Inc, 8909 Purdue Road, Suite 550, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Mar 11;15:76. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-76.
This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis.
A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ≥12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors.
Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics.
This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses.
本荟萃分析评估了度洛西汀与对乙酰氨基酚治疗失败后用于骨关节炎患者管理的其他口服治疗方法的疗效。
于1985年1月至2013年3月期间在PUBMED、EMBASE、MedLine在研数据库、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov中对英文文章进行系统文献综述。如果治疗时间≥12周且可获得西安大略和麦克马斯特大学指数(WOMAC)总分,则纳入度洛西汀与所有口服非甾体抗炎药和阿片类药物的随机对照试验。使用来自英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所单技术评估提交指南的评估工具对研究进行质量评估。提取WOMAC基线和基线总分变化并进行标准化。使用DerSimonian-Laird和Bucher方法进行频率学派荟萃分析、荟萃回归和间接比较。使用非信息先验进行有和没有针对研究水平协变量调整的贝叶斯分析。
32篇出版物报告了34项符合纳入标准的试验(2篇出版物各报告2项试验)。分析发现,除羟考酮(频率学派)和氢吗啡酮(频率学派和贝叶斯学派)外,所有治疗方法均比安慰剂更有效。与度洛西汀的间接比较发现,大多数化合物无显著差异。一些分析显示,在某些化合物方面与度洛西汀存在差异的证据,对于依托考昔(更好)、曲马多和羟考酮(更差),但各分析结果不一致。森林图显示总体疗效改善随基线评分呈上升趋势。调整基线后,度洛西汀优于其他治疗方法的概率在15%至100%之间。本研究的局限性包括分析中纳入的研究数量较少、仅纳入英文出版物以及可能存在与患者水平特征相关的生态学谬误。
该分析表明,在治疗约12周后,度洛西汀与其他用于骨关节炎(OA)的一线后口服治疗方法在WOMAC总分方面无差异。3种化合物(1种更好和2种更差)的显著结果在各分析中不一致。