MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108345382 · doi:10.1001/archinte.160.19.2947

Safety and Efficacy of Meloxicam in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis

2000· article· en· W2108345382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David E. Yocum

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Internal Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityFrances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families
KeywordsMeloxicamMedicineDiclofenacOsteoarthritisPlaceboAdverse effectPopulationAnesthesiaTolerabilityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Meloxicam (Mobic; Boehringer Ingelheim, Ridgefield, Conn) is an enolic acid derivative of the oxicam group of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) whose mechanism of action may be related to prostaglandin (cyclooxygenase) synthetase inhibition. In previous studies, meloxicam has been found to be safe and effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) at doses of 7.5 to 15 mg daily. To evaluate a lower dose and a different patient population, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of 3 doses of meloxicam vs placebo and diclofenac for the treatment of OA among patients with symptom exacerbations. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter study, 774 patients with confirmed OA of the hip or knee and a flare were randomized and treated with daily oral administration of meloxicam tablets (at dosages of 3.75, 7.5, or 15 mg/d), diclofenac (100 mg [50 mg twice daily]), or placebo. Treatment was for 12 weeks, with regular assessments for drug safety and efficacy. Safety was assessed by evaluation of adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory data. Primary efficacy variables included the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, the patient's overall assessment of pain, and the patient's and investigator's overall assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: The incidence of all adverse events was lower at each dosage of meloxicam than for diclofenac but greater than for placebo. However, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and dropout rates because of such events was the same for meloxicam as for placebo and lower than for diclofenac. Meloxicam, at 7.5 and 15 mg/d, and diclofenac were statistically significantly more effective than placebo for all end points, while the 3.75-mg/d dosage of meloxicam did not always reach statistical significance for all end points. Efficacy was evident after 2 weeks of treatment, improved with increasing doses, and was maintained until the end of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Meloxicam is a safe and effective medication for the symptomatic treatment of OA. The data support consideration of 7.5 to 15 mg of meloxicam once daily to treat the pain and stiffness of OA, with gastrointestinal tolerability comparable to that of placebo. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2947-2954

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Internal MedicineSame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207