↓ Skip to main content

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for axial spondyloarthritis (ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for axial spondyloarthritis (ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010952.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Féline PB Kroon, Lennart RA van der Burg, Sofia Ramiro, Robert BM Landewé, Rachelle Buchbinder, Louise Falzon, Désirée van der Heijde

Abstract

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) comprises ankylosing spondylitis (radiographic axSpA) and non-radiographic (nr-)axSpA and is associated with psoriasis, uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as first-line drug treatment. To determine the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in axSpA. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE to 18 June 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in adults with axSpA and observational cohort studies studying the long term effect (≥ six months) of NSAIDs on radiographic progression or adverse events (AEs). The main comparions were traditional or COX-2 NSAIDs versus placebo. The major outcomes were pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), radiographic progression, number of withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE. We included 39 studies (35 RCTs, two quasi-RCTs and two cohort studies); and 29 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs (n = 4356) in quantitative analyses for the comparisons: traditional NSAIDs versus placebo, cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) versus placebo, COX-2 versus traditional NSAIDs, NSAIDs versus NSAIDs, naproxen versus other NSAIDs, low versus high dose. Most trials were at unclear risk of selection bias (n = 29), although blinding of participants and personnel was adequate in 24 trials. Twenty-five trials had low risk of attrition bias and 29 trials had low risk of reporting bias. Risk of bias in both cohort studies was high for study participation, and low or unclear for all other criteria. No trials in the meta-analyses assessed patients with nr-axSpA.Traditional NSAIDs were more beneficial than placebo at six weeks. High quality evidence (four trials, N=850) indicates better pain relief with NSAIDs (pain in control group ranged from 57 to 64 on a 100mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and was 16.5 points lower in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) -20.8 to -12.2), lower scores indicate less pain, NNT 4 (3 to 6)); moderate quality evidence (one trial, n = 190) indicates improved disease activity with NSAIDs (BASDAI in control group was 54.7 on a 100-point scale and was 17.5 points lower in the NSAID group, 95% CI -23.1 to -11.8), lower scores indicate less disease activity, NNT 3 (2 to 4)); and high quality evidence (two trials, n = 356) indicates improved function with NSAIDs (BASFI in control group was 50.0 on a 100-point scale and was 9.1 points lower in the NSAID group (95% CI -13.0 to -5.1), lower scores indicate better functioning, NNT 5 (3 to 8)). High (five trials, n = 1165) and moderate (three trials, n = 671) quality evidence (downgraded due to potential imprecision) indicates that withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs did not differ significantly between placebo (52/1000 and 2/1000) and NSAID (39/1000 and 3/1000) groups after 12 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; and RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 7.97, respectively). BASMI and radiographic progression were not reported.COX-2 NSAIDS were also more efficacious than placebo at six weeks. High quality evidence (two trials, n = 349) indicates better pain relief with COX-2 (pain in control group was 64 points and was 21.7 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -35.9 to -7.4), NNT 3 (2 to 24)); moderate quality evidence (one trial, n = 193) indicates improved disease activity with COX-2 (BASDAI in control groups was 54.7 points and was 22 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -27.4 to -16.6), NNT 2 (1 to 3)); and high quality evidence (two trials, n = 349) showed improved function with COX-2 (BASFI in control group was 50.0 points and was 13.4 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -17.4 to -9.5), NNT 3 (2 to 4)). Low and moderate quality evidence (three trials, n = 669) (downgraded due to potential imprecision and heterogeneity) indicates that withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs did not differ significantly between placebo (11/1000 and 2/1000) and COX-2 (24/1000 and 2/1000) groups after 12 weeks (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.36 to 12.56; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.21, respectively). BASMI and radiographic progression were not reported.There were no significant differences in benefits (pain on VAS: MD -2.62, 95% CI -10.99 to 5.75; three trials, n = 669) or harms (withdrawals due to AEs: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.82; four trials, n = 995) between NSAID classes. While indomethacin use resulted in significantly more AEs (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; 11 studies, n = 1135), and neurological AEs (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.14; nine trials, n = 963) than other NSAIDs, these findings were not robust to sensitivity analyses. We found no important differences in harms between naproxen and other NSAIDs (three trials, n = 646), although other NSAIDs appeared more effective for relieving pain (MD 6.80, 95% CI 3.72 to 9.88; two trials, n = 232). We found no clear dose-response effect on benefits or harms (five studies, n = 1136). Single studies suggest NSAIDs may be effective in retarding radiographic progression, especially in certain subgroups of patients, e.g. patients with high CRP, and that this may be best achieved by continuous rather than on-demand use of NSAIDs. High to moderate quality evidence indicates that both traditional and COX-2 NSAIDs are efficacious for treating axSpA, and moderate to low quality evidence indicates harms may not differ from placebo in the short term. Various NSAIDs are equally effective. Continuous NSAID use may reduce radiographic spinal progression, but this requires confirmation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 179 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 15%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 27 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 36 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,063,961
of 14,709,008 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,061
of 11,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,104
of 233,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,709,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.