The Efficacy of Continuous Versus Intermittent Celecoxib Treatment in Osteoarthritis Patients with Body Mass Index ≥30 and <30 kg/m2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Characterize the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy of continuous daily celecoxib treatment compared with intermittent celecoxib treatment. METHODS: Prespecified exploratory analysis of a 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter international study. 858 patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized to receive celecoxib 200 mg daily either as continuous or intermittent treatment. Efficacy was measured by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) total and subscale scores and the number of flare events. RESULTS: Least squares mean increases (worsening) in WOMAC total scores were significantly less in the continuous treatment group than in the intermittent treatment group in patients with a BMI <30 kg/m(2) (1.33 vs 4.85; p=0.016) and in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) (1.84 vs 5.12; p=0.019). There was a greater worsening in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) than in those with a BMI <30 kg/m(2) in both the continuous and intermittent groups. Fewer flares were reported in the continuous treatment group than in the intermittent group in patients with a BMI <30 kg/m(2) (0.55 vs 0.88; p<0.0001) and ≥30 kg/m(2) (0.54 vs 0.97; p<0.0001). There were no differences in adverse events in the two BMI groups. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous celecoxib treatment was significantly more efficacious than intermittent use in patients with a BMI <30 kg/m(2) compared with obese patients (≥30 kg/m(2)) as assessed by WOMAC total scores and the number of flares. These data suggest that including weight loss as part of a treatment regimen for obese OA patients could be important.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".