ArticlePharmacoEconomics2003
Modelling therapeutic strategies in the treatment of osteoarthritis: an economic evaluation of meloxicam versus diclofenac and piroxicam.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating adverse events reported for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis: a real-world pharmacovigilance study.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Article
- Thermosensitive Polyurethane-Based Hydrogels as Potential Vehicles for Meloxicam Delivery.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the economic efficiency of meloxicam, a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor, versus diclofenac and piroxicam in the UK for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis and the impact on the NHS budget of substituting nonselective NSAIDs with meloxicam. Methods and perspective: A decision analytical model was used to compare the effects of 4 weeks' treatment of osteoarthritis with meloxicam (7.5 mg/day), diclofenac (100 mg/day) and piroxicam (20 mg/day). The decision tree was derived by combining best practice and clinical reality. Analysis was from the NHS perspective. The study considered only the direct costs. These included costs for drug acquisition and management of all adverse events, both serious gastrointestinal events requiring hospitalisation, and non-serious events that required maintenance. Resource use and treatment costs were obtained from local and published sources. A range of sensitivity analyses was carried out.
resultsBased on two 4-week large-scale trials, the Meloxicam Large-scale International Study Safety Assessment (MELISSA) and Safety and Efficacy Large-scale Evaluation of COX-inhibiting Therapies (SELECT) trials, and a decision analytical model, the findings suggested that meloxicam had the lowest cost per patient ( pound 30 versus pound 35 for piroxicam and pound 51 for diclofenac [costs presented as 1998 values except for drug costs which were in 2000 values]). The results of the Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 4000 samples, suggested that meloxicam was the optimal strategy in the drug treatment of patients with osteoarthritis compared with nonselective NSAIDs both individually and as a group. The cost savings were due to lower levels of serious adverse events accompanied by fewer days in intensive care units and shorter overall duration of hospital stay observed with meloxicam compared with diclofenac and piroxicam in the 4-week trials.
conclusionsBased on the 4-week trial period, meloxicam was predicted to be the lowest cost drug therapy, and thus the optimal drug therapy, in the management of patients with osteoarthritis compared with nonselective NSAIDs such as diclofenac and piroxicam. Applying the cost savings per patient derived from the model, switching patients from piroxicam and diclofenac to meloxicam would indicate a cost saving of over pound 25 million per annum. Models such as this can facilitate better clinical guidance and is a useful way of assessing treatment outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.