Coxib Safety in Patients with InflammatoryBowel Diseases: A Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) frequently have extraintestinal manifestations including arthritis, sacroiliitis, and ankylosing spondylitis. While the treatment of these rheumatological conditions with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been reported to lead to frequent IBD exacerbation, the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (Coxibs) remains unclear. Objectives: Our aim is to carry out a meta-analysis to verify if Coxibs, employed to treat rheumatological manifestations, are associated with an increased risk of exacerbation of IBD compared to placebo. Study Design and Setting: A MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI-Web of Knowledge, and EMBASE search of all studies published in English from 1965 to April 15, 2015, was conducted. Articles on the safety of Coxibs in patients with IBD were identified using the terms “Coxibs or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or COX-2 inhibitors AND inflammatory bowel disease.” Methods: The criteria of exclusion of the studies were NSAIDs administration within 2 weeks before starting Coxibs. For the “proportion” meta-analysis, the studies had to report the proportion of patients that had to discontinue the Coxibs therapy due to an exacerbation of IBD; for the “relative risk” meta-analysis, the studies had to be prospective with a comparison between patients taking Coxibs and patients taking placebo. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts of references retrieved from the literature search and selected potentially relevant studies. Differences in opinion were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. If an agreement failed to be reached, a third author was consulted. The quality of each study was assessed on a 5-point scale adapted from studies by the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated disorders and Jadad. Results: The search identified 72 publications of which 7 studies reported the proportion of patients with IBD that had to stop the Coxibs therapy because of a worsening of the activity of IBD. The pooled proportion of flare up of IBD in patients that received Coxibs was 14.4% (95% CI: 6.7 – 24.4%). There was no statistically significant difference between patients that assumed Coxibs and those that assumed placebo (total fixed effect relative risk = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.39 – 1.88, P = 0.7). Limitations: A proportion of patients received maintenance therapy with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and these co-interventions could have protected against a Coxib-induced flare; furthermore, the duration of Coxib assumption in the prospective studies is shorter compared to that of the medical practice. Three of the studies included in our meta-analysis had an insufficient quality but due to the higher number of recruited patients, the studies with a better quality had a higher weight in the final result. Moreover, to assess the relative risk of flare up of IBD only randomized controlled trials have been used in the second meta-analysis. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that Coxibs are safe in most patients with IBD. Controlled trials of Coxibs compared with NSAIDs would be useful, at least in patients suffering from rheumatic pain refractory to standard treatment. Key words: Acute pain, ankylosing spondylitis, arthritis, coxibs, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatic manifestations, sacroiliitis
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,039 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».