SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Celecoxib”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Safety Profile of the Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Celecoxib in the Short-Term Management of Acute Non-cancer Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the literature regarding the safety of short-term use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Participants comprised individuals of all ages with acute non-cancer pain. Interventions included celecoxib at 200-400 mg/day for up to 10 days. The comparators were placebo, other NSAIDs (including cyclooxygenase-2 [COX-2] inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDS [nsNSAIDS]), or opioids. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched from inception to April 2025: Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Additionally, a registry was searched: ClinicalTrials.gov. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for severe cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal adverse events and secondary outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised trials (RoB-2) was used to assess bias risk. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was conducted to assess the certainty of evidence of each reported outcome. RESULTS: Title/abstract and full text screening comprised 3976 and 273 studies, respectively. Fifty studies were included with 10,693 participants. The RRs for adverse events were no different between celecoxib and placebo for severe events (3 studies) (RR 0.44 [95% CI 0.10-2.03]), cardiovascular (3 studies) (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.24-2.92]), respiratory (4 studies) (RR 1.23 [95% CI 0.29-5.26]), and gastrointestinal events (33 studies) (RR 0.96 [95% CI 0.64-1.43]). There was no difference between celecoxib and NSAIDS for gastrointestinal adverse events, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.68-1.17). Celecoxib had a lower risk compared to opioids for gastrointestinal events, RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.14-0.86), and showed a lower risk of nausea compared with placebo, RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.93), and nsNSAIDS, RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64-0.99). Most studies had some risk of bias concerns, and the overall certainty of evidence for most outcomes was very low. Celecoxib appears to be safe for acute non-cancer pain when compared to placebo, NSAIDS, and opioids. It had a lower risk compared to opioids for gastrointestinal adverse events in general, nausea and vomiting, as well as a lower risk for nausea adverse events when compared to placebo and nsNSAIDS. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42025642152.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib Combined With Jintiange Capsules for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) poses a substantial global health burden, and conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy with celecoxib is hindered by adverse effects. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining celecoxib with Jintiange capsules, a synthetic tiger bone formulation used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), to manage symptomatic KOA. MATERIAL AND METHODS This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 120 patients with KOA (age 40 years; visual analog scale [VAS] score 4-7). Participants received celecoxib (200 mg/day tapered to 100 mg/day) combined with either Jintiange capsules (3.6 g/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC subscale scores (pain, function, and stiffness), VAS scores, and adverse drug reaction reports. RESULTS The experimental group demonstrated a 23.5-point (37.8%) reduction in WOMAC total score from baseline (P<0.001); the control group showed a 13.2-point (21.6%) reduction (P<0.001). The experimental group achieved 51.6% improvement in the WOMAC pain subscale (P<0.001), whereas the control group showed 33.3% improvement (P<0.001). Relative to the control group, the experimental group demonstrated a greater reduction in VAS score (P<0.001). Combined TCM-NSAID therapy produced significantly greater pain relief and functional improvement than NSAID monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Celecoxib combined with Jintiange capsules provided clinically meaningful improvements in pain relief and functional outcomes relative to celecoxib monotherapy in patients with KOA. These findings support integration of TCM with conventional pharmacotherapy for osteoarthritis management.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2024

Drug repurposing in status epilepticus.

The treatment of status epilepticus (SE) has changed little in the last 20 years, largely because of the high risks and costs of new drug development for SE. Moreover, SE poses specific challenges to drug development, such as patient diversity, logistical hurdles, and the need for acute treatment strategies that differ from chronic seizure prevention. This has reduced the appetite of industry to develop new drugs in this area. Drug repurposing is an attractive approach to address this unmet need. It offers significant advantages, including reduced development time, lower costs, and higher success rates, compared to novel drug development. Here I demonstrate how novel methods integrating biological knowledge and computational methods can be applied to drug repurposing in status epilepticus. Biological approaches focus on addressing mechanisms underlying drug resistance in SE (using for example ketamine, tacrolimus and safinamide) and longer-term consequences (using for example omaveloxolone, celecoxib and losartan). Additionally, artificial intelligence platforms, such as ChatGPT, can rapidly generate promising drug lists, while in silico methods can analyze gene expression changes to predict molecular targets. Combining AI and in silico approaches has identified several candidate drugs, including metformin, sirolimus and riluzole, for SE treatment. Despite the promise of repurposing, challenges remain, such as intellectual property issues and regulatory barriers. Nonetheless, drug repurposing presents a viable solution to the high costs and slow progress of traditional drug development for SE. This paper is based on a presentation made at the 9th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures, in April 2024.

Animals↗