Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Celecoxib”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib Combined With Jintiange Capsules for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) poses a substantial global health burden, and conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy with celecoxib is hindered by adverse effects. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining celecoxib with Jintiange capsules, a synthetic tiger bone formulation used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), to manage symptomatic KOA. MATERIAL AND METHODS This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 120 patients with KOA (age &#xf0b3;40 years; visual analog scale [VAS] score 4-7). Participants received celecoxib (200 mg/day tapered to 100 mg/day) combined with either Jintiange capsules (3.6 g/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC subscale scores (pain, function, and stiffness), VAS scores, and adverse drug reaction reports. RESULTS The experimental group demonstrated a 23.5-point (37.8%) reduction in WOMAC total score from baseline (P<0.001); the control group showed a 13.2-point (21.6%) reduction (P<0.001). The experimental group achieved 51.6% improvement in the WOMAC pain subscale (P<0.001), whereas the control group showed 33.3% improvement (P<0.001). Relative to the control group, the experimental group demonstrated a greater reduction in VAS score (P<0.001). Combined TCM-NSAID therapy produced significantly greater pain relief and functional improvement than NSAID monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Celecoxib combined with Jintiange capsules provided clinically meaningful improvements in pain relief and functional outcomes relative to celecoxib monotherapy in patients with KOA. These findings support integration of TCM with conventional pharmacotherapy for osteoarthritis management.

Humans

Safety Profile of the Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Celecoxib in the Short-Term Management of Acute Non-cancer Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the literature regarding the safety of short-term use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug&#xa0;(NSAID) celecoxib. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Participants comprised individuals of all ages with acute non-cancer pain. Interventions included celecoxib at 200-400 mg/day for up to 10 days. The comparators were placebo, other NSAIDs (including cyclooxygenase-2 [COX-2] inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDS [nsNSAIDS]), or opioids. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched from inception to April 2025: Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Additionally, a registry was searched: ClinicalTrials.gov. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for severe cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal adverse events and secondary outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised trials (RoB-2) was used to assess bias risk. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was conducted to assess the certainty of evidence of each reported outcome. RESULTS: Title/abstract and full text screening comprised 3976 and 273 studies, respectively. Fifty studies were included with 10,693 participants. The RRs for adverse events were no different between celecoxib and placebo for severe events (3 studies) (RR 0.44 [95% CI 0.10-2.03]), cardiovascular (3 studies) (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.24-2.92]), respiratory (4 studies) (RR 1.23 [95% CI 0.29-5.26]), and gastrointestinal events (33 studies) (RR 0.96 [95% CI 0.64-1.43]). There was no difference between celecoxib and NSAIDS for gastrointestinal adverse events, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.68-1.17). Celecoxib had a lower risk compared to opioids for gastrointestinal events, RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.14-0.86), and showed a lower risk of nausea compared with placebo, RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.93), and nsNSAIDS, RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64-0.99). Most studies had some risk of bias concerns, and the overall certainty of evidence for most outcomes was very low. Celecoxib appears to be safe for acute non-cancer pain when compared to placebo, NSAIDS, and opioids. It had a lower risk compared to opioids for gastrointestinal adverse events in general, nausea and vomiting, as well as a lower risk for nausea adverse events when compared to placebo and nsNSAIDS. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42025642152.

Journal Article

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-7.57;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.73;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.13;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.96;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.25;-0.75); valproate 750&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.76;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.75;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.74;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.62; 95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.59;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.52;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.53;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.54;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.49;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.46;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.42;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.49;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.38;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.34;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15&#xa0;mg/day(SMD&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.33;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160&#xa0;mg/day, celecoxib 200&#xa0;mg/day, asenapine 20&#xa0;mg/day, and asenapine 10&#xa0;mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans