Safety of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and/or Paracetamol in People Receiving Methotrexate for Inflammatory Arthritis: A Cochrane Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the safety of using nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) and/or paracetamol in people receiving methotrexate (MTX) for inflammatory arthritis (IA), as an evidence base for generating clinical practice recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and conference proceedings for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for 2008-2009. The search aimed to identify studies describing adverse events (AE) with the concurrent use of paracetamol and/or NSAID in people taking MTX for IA. Articles fulfilling our predefined inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed and quality appraised. RESULTS: Seventeen publications out of 8681 identified studies were included in the review, all of which included people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using various NSAID; there were no identified studies for other forms of IA or with paracetamol. Of the studies examining concurrent use of MTX and NSAID, there were no reported adverse effects on lung, liver, or renal function, and no increase in MTX withdrawal or in major toxic reactions. However, transient thrombocytopenia was demonstrated in 1 study. Looking at specific NSAID, there were no clinically significant AE with concomitant piroxicam or etodolac, and only mild AE with celecoxib or etoricoxib. Antiinflammatory dose aspirin was demonstrated to have an adverse effect on liver and renal function. CONCLUSION: In the management of RA, concurrent use of NSAID with MTX appears to be safe, provided appropriate monitoring is performed. The use of antiinflammatory doses of aspirin should be avoided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".