This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Meloxicam does in the body
Meloxicam blocks the enzymes that make prostaglandins, the messengers that make an inflamed joint hurt and swell.
What distinguishes it is timing rather than mechanism: it is absorbed slowly, peaks four to five hours after a dose, has a second smaller peak around twelve hours because the liver recycles it through the bile, and takes about five days of daily dosing to reach a steady level. That makes it a good maintenance drug for arthritis and a poor choice for pain you want gone this afternoon. It is often described as preferring the inflammation enzyme over the housekeeping one, which is supported by laboratory work and is not a claim its prescribing information makes.
Why people take it. Arthritis pain and inflammation, taken once a day
What happened in people
Gastrointestinal adverse events 13% against diclofenac’s 19% over 28 days in 9,323 patients, with hard ulcer complications not significantly different (5 against 7)
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
Very widely prescribed for acute musculoskeletal and dental pain, a use its oral label does not cover
Where it acts
The cyclooxygenase channel of COX-1 and COX-2 in inflamed synovium, gastric mucosa, kidney and platelets, held for a long time — the elimination half-life is about 20 hours
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · VG2QF83CGL · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C14H13N3O4S2, weighing 351.4.
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
The recorded use, written for a reader without medical training. Not signed off.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 146 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Pain
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer6 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Pain
pain intensity difference at end of study; spontaneous pharyngeal pain; pharyngeal pain on deglutition; summed pain intensity difference over the first 24 hours; pain; post operative pain
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
6 registered symptom measure.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Profile of adverse events with meloxicam 7.5 mg against diclofenac slow-release 100 mg in symptomatic osteoarthritis, with efficacy assessed alongside
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
MELISSA (Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:937-945)
How many people
9323
Study design
Large-scale, double-blind, randomised, international, prospective, 28 days
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Gastrointestinal adverse events 13% against 19% (P<0.001); withdrawal for adverse events 5.48% against 7.96% (P<0.001); perforations, ulcers or bleeds 5 against 7 (not significant); five patient-days of hospitalisation against 121
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Efficacy on visual analogue scales consistently favoured diclofenac, with 95% confidence intervals not crossing zero, and significantly more patients discontinued meloxicam for lack of efficacy (80 of 4,635 against 49 of 4,688, P<0.01). The comparator dose was diclofenac 100 mg slow-release rather than the 150 mg used in the efficacy literature, and the trial ran 28 days in a disease treated for decades.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablets at 7.5 and 15 mg, capsules, an oral suspension, a low-dose submicron capsule formulation and an orally disintegrating tablet; also an intravenous formulation. Taken once daily
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Adverse event incidence with meloxicam 7.5 mg against piroxicam 20 mg once daily in exacerbation of osteoarthritis
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
SELECT (Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:946-951)
How many people
8656
Study design
Large-scale, prospective, international, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group, 28 days
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Adverse events 22.5% against 27.9% (P<0.001); gastrointestinal adverse events 10.3% against 15.4% (P<0.001); dyspepsia 3.4% against 5.8% (P<0.001); perforations, ulcers or bleeds 7 against 16 (relative risk 1.4), with four complicated events all on piroxicam
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The comparator, piroxicam, was later assigned a pooled observational upper gastrointestinal complication relative risk of 7.43 — the second highest of any NSAID examined — so beating it is a weak benchmark. Efficacy was equivalent, and the trial ran 28 days.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablets at 7.5 and 15 mg, capsules, an oral suspension, a low-dose submicron capsule formulation and an orally disintegrating tablet; also an intravenous formulation. Taken once daily
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Adjusted relative risk of upper gastrointestinal complications, and of acute myocardial infarction, for individual NSAIDs against non-use
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
SOS project pooled observational analyses (Drug Saf 2012 and Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013)
How many people
28
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies, 28 studies for gastrointestinal and 18 independent populations for myocardial infarction
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Meloxicam upper gastrointestinal complications relative risk 3.47 (95% CI 2.19 to 5.50); acute myocardial infarction relative risk 1.25 (1.04 to 1.49)
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. These are observational data and cannot exclude confounding by indication — meloxicam may be preferentially prescribed to patients already thought to be at gastrointestinal risk, which would bias against it. The sample-size field records the number of pooled studies, not participants. They remain the only hard-endpoint comparison across these molecules.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablets at 7.5 and 15 mg, capsules, an oral suspension, a low-dose submicron capsule formulation and an orally disintegrating tablet; also an intravenous formulation. Taken once daily
Interval reported. 95% CI 2
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
■Symptoms and quality of lifeEvidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.6 registered measures of this kind.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.4 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Mouse, Rat, Dog. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
■Cells in a dishEvidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Where a source records it acting
Joints: Concentrations in synovial fluid after a single oral dose range from 40% to 50% of those in plasma
US prescribing information · 06a401f0-4380-4081-86ed-a309a25abf6b · read 2026-08-27
Start
Meloxicam
What a person takes: Oral tablets at 7.5 and 15 mg, capsules, an oral suspension, a low-dose submicron capsule formulation and an orally disintegrating tablet; also an intravenous formulation. Taken once daily.
The measurement behind this step
Absolute bioavailability 89% against intravenous dosing, with dose-proportional pharmacokinetics from 7.5 to 15 mg orally. Absorption is slow: peak concentration at four to five hours, described in the label as prolonged, with a second peak at 12 to 14 hours attributed to biliary recycling and steady state reached by day five. Elimination half-life about 20 hours. A high-fat meal raises capsule peak concentration by about 22% without changing total exposure; the suspension is unaffected.
Getting in
One substitution away from piroxicam
Meloxicam is chemically an oxicam, the same family as piroxicam. The difference is a single ring swapped at one position — and that swap is the whole basis of the claim that it is gentler.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
A 4-hydroxy-2-methyl-2H-1,2-benzothiazine-3-carboxamide 1,1-dioxide carrying 2-amino-5-methylthiazole where piroxicam carries 2-aminopyridine. Piroxicam’s pooled observational upper gastrointestinal relative risk is 7.43 (5.19 to 10.63); meloxicam’s is 3.47 (2.19 to 5.50). Better, and not in the range of celecoxib at 1.45.
It takes four to five hours to reach peak blood levels, and a second smaller peak arrives around twelve hours later because the liver sends it out in bile and the gut absorbs it again.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Absolute bioavailability 89%. Time to peak four to five hours at 7.5 mg fasted, described in the label as prolonged absorption. A second concentration peak occurs at 12 to 14 hours post-dose, attributed to biliary recycling. Steady state by day five; elimination half-life about 20 hours.
It blocks both enzymes — with a lean, at low concentrations
Laboratory work shows meloxicam prefers the inflammation enzyme when the concentration is low. That preference weakens as concentration rises, and the licensed dose range doubles.
╌╌Measured in animals. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
The measurement behind this step
Whole-blood COX-2 preference is real in vitro and concentration-dependent. The label makes no selectivity claim, stating only that the mechanism involves inhibition of cyclooxygenase COX-1 and COX-2 — the identical wording used for ibuprofen and naproxen. Pharmacokinetics are dose-proportional from 7.5 mg to 15 mg, so a doubled dose is a doubled concentration.
Prostaglandin falls and arthritis pain falls with it
Once steady levels are reached, a single daily tablet keeps inflammatory messenger production down around the clock. That is what the drug is licensed for and what it does well.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The label states that prostaglandins sensitise afferent nerves and potentiate the action of bradykinin in inducing pain, and are mediators of inflammation, and that meloxicam’s mode of action may be due to a decrease of prostaglandins in peripheral tissues. Licensed for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at 60 kg or above.
A twenty-hour half-life means the protective prostaglandins in the stomach lining and the kidney are suppressed continuously rather than in pulses, which is the likely reason a "preferential" drug ends up with diclofenac-range bleeding numbers.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Pooled observational upper gastrointestinal complication relative risk 3.47 (2.19 to 5.50) against diclofenac 3.34 (2.79 to 3.99), ibuprofen 1.84 (1.54 to 2.20) and celecoxib 1.45 (1.17 to 1.81). Acute myocardial infarction relative risk 1.25 (1.04 to 1.49), above ibuprofen 1.14 and celecoxib 1.12.
What was measured, and what the label will not say
Measured: fewer episodes of indigestion over 28 days than diclofenac or piroxicam, and slightly worse pain relief than diclofenac. Not stated in the label: any COX-2 selectivity, and any indication for acute pain.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
MELISSA: gastrointestinal adverse events 13% against 19% (P<0.001) but hard ulcer complications 5 against 7, not significant; efficacy consistently favoured diclofenac and more patients discontinued meloxicam for lack of efficacy (P<0.01). SELECT: adverse events 22.5% against 27.9% against piroxicam. Both trials ran 28 days.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
pain intensity difference at end of study
spontaneous pharyngeal pain
pharyngeal pain on deglutition
summed pain intensity difference over the first 24 hours
pain
post operative pain
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
cmax maximum observed concentration
time to maximum concentration
time to reach maximum plasma concentration
maximum measured concentration of the analyte in plasma
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (30)
bioequivalence
efficacy
bioequivalence on cmax and auc parameters
1st peak rms knee index
cmax
auc0 inf
tmax
functional index of ankylosing spondylitis of dougados
overall assessment of disease activity by the on vas
arachidonic acid induced platelet aggregation
auc 0
pharyngeal hyperemia
systemic manifestations
incidence of adverse events
efficacy percentage of primary dysmenorrhea reduction
adverse events
ovulatory disruption
oxycodone tablets
opioid related side effects
basdai
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How long anything takes
Nine different lengths of time that get confused with each other. None of them is worked out from another.
Before anything is noticed.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before a test result moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before performance moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
How long the result was watched.No finished study window is recorded for a study that tested this substance.
How long people took it.How long people actually took it is not stored. The study window is not the same thing.
How long people were followed.Follow-up length is not stored separately. It is never read off the study window, which would be a different thing.
How fast the body clears it. 15 hours to 20 hours hours
Read from the label, which states: “The mean elimination half-life (t 1/2 ) ranges from 15 hours to 20 hours.”
How long effects linger.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Beyond the studies. Nothing is recorded about the long term.
The longest finished study sets the edge of what anyone measured.
A study window is not how long people took it, and neither is how long they were followed. Where RNAWiki holds only one of the three, it shows one.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Adults with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, and children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis weighing at least 60 kg. Contraindicated in the setting of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and after aspirin- or NSAID-triggered asthma or urticaria.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of meloxicam in pediatric JRA patients from 2 to 17 years of age has been evaluated in three clinical trials [ see Dosage and Administration ( 2.3 ), Adverse Reactions ( 6.1 ) and Clinical Studies ( 14.2 ) ].”
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “Elderly patients, compared to younger patients, are at greater risk for NSAID-associated serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and/or renal adverse reactions.”
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “5.9 Serious Skin Reactions NSAIDs, including meloxicam, can cause serious skin adverse reactions such as exfoliative dermatitis, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), which can be fatal.NSAIDs can also cause fixed drug eruption (FDE).”
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “8.3 Females and Males of Reproductive Potential Infertility Females Based on the mechanism of action, the use of prostaglandin-mediated NSAIDs, including meloxicam, may delay or prevent rupture of ovarian follicles, which has been associated with reversible infertility in some women.”
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “No dose adjustment is necessary in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment.”
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “No dose adjustment is necessary in patients with mild to moderate renal impairment.”
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
Hard ulcer complications in MELISSA were 5 against 7 and explicitly not statistically significant
Efficacy in MELISSA consistently favoured diclofenac, and significantly more patients quit meloxicam for lack of efficacy
Myocardial infarction risk is significantly raised where ibuprofen’s and celecoxib’s did not reach significance
The comparator in SELECT, piroxicam, was subsequently found to have the second-worst gastrointestinal profile of any NSAID studied
No trial has compared meloxicam with celecoxib on gastrointestinal outcomes at both licensed meloxicam doses
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Given by a clinician
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablets at 7.5 and 15 mg, capsules, an oral suspension, a low-dose submicron capsule formulation and an orally disintegrating tablet; also an intravenous formulation. Taken once daily
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Suppression classes recorded: S3, S6.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
5 to 15 mg orally.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Absorption is slow: peak concentration at four to five hours, described in the label as prolonged, with a second peak at 12 to 14 hours attributed to biliary recycling and steady state reached by day five. Elimination half-life about 20 hours. A high-fat meal raises capsule peak concentration by about 22% without changing total exposure; the suspension is unaffected.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Boxed warning for cardiovascular thrombotic events including fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, and for gastrointestinal bleeding, ulceration and perforation which can occur at any time and without warning symptoms. Contraindicated in the setting of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and after asthma, urticaria or other allergic-type reactions to aspirin or other NSAIDs. The long half-life means gastric, renal and platelet effects are sustained rather than intermittent, and exposure varies several-fold with age, sex, renal function and hepatic function at the same nominal dose.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Meloxicam appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 1995 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablets at 7.5 and 15 mg, capsules, an oral suspension, a low-dose submicron capsule formulation and an orally disintegrating tablet; also an intravenous formulation. Taken once daily
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
5 to 15 mg orally.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Absorption is slow: peak concentration at four to five hours, described in the label as prolonged, with a second peak at 12 to 14 hours attributed to biliary recycling and steady state reached by day five. Elimination half-life about 20 hours. A high-fat meal raises capsule peak concentration by about 22% without changing total exposure; the suspension is unaffected.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
177 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 174 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 71610-542 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as capsule, injection, powder, solution, suspension and tablet, taken infiltration, intravenous and oral.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 71610-542 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is anti-inflammatory agents, cyclooxygenase inhibitors [moa] and non-steroidal [cs].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 71610-542 · read 2026-08-29
125 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 123 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · cdd282df-572f-42a7-a1c6-a00e1bb4573d · read 2026-08-29
Meloxicam is tablets at Tablets: 7.5 mg and 15 mg, recorded as prescription product; fda label in effect 2024-08-08 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 06a401f0-4380-4081-86ed-a309a25abf6b · read 2026-08-27
Recorded price in US: 0.01652–11.14251 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, across 50 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Meloxicam studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That meloxicam is a clinically meaningful COX-2 selective agent — a claim absent from its label and using the identical mechanism wording as ibuprofen and naproxen
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That it is gentler on the stomach than ibuprofen, when the hard-endpoint observational data put it at roughly double ibuprofen’s risk
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That it is suitable for acute pain, when the oral label has no such indication and peak concentration takes four to five hours
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the 28-day tolerability trials measured bleeding — they measured dyspepsia, nausea and abdominal pain, and the ulcer complication counts were not significant in MELISSA
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Meloxicam are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
The COX-2 selectivity claim is not in the label
In plain words
Meloxicam is almost always described as a COX-2 preferential anti-inflammatory, which is why people believe it is gentler than ibuprofen. Its United States prescribing information says only that its mechanism involves inhibition of COX-1 and COX-2, with no selectivity claim of any kind.
What was measured
That meloxicam is a selective or preferential COX-2 inhibitor in the clinically meaningful sense, and therefore gastrointestinally safer — an in vitro property extrapolated to patients, absent from the label, and contradicted by the observational hard-endpoint data
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Section 12.1 of the meloxicam label reads: "Meloxicam has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties. The mechanism of action of meloxicam, like that of other NSAIDs, is not completely understood but involves inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX-1 and COX-2)." It is word-for-word the same paragraph the label carries for ibuprofen and for naproxen. The laboratory literature on meloxicam’s COX-2 preference is genuine — whole-blood assays do show a ratio favouring COX-2 at lower concentrations — but it is concentration-dependent, and the licensed dose range spans a factor of two, from 7.5 mg to 15 mg. The comparison that would settle it, meloxicam against celecoxib on gastrointestinal outcomes at both doses, has never been run. What is on record instead is observational: in the pooled analysis of 28 observational studies, meloxicam’s upper gastrointestinal complication relative risk was 3.47 (95% CI 2.19 to 5.50), against celecoxib’s 1.45 (1.17 to 1.81) and ibuprofen’s 1.84 (1.54 to 2.20).
Source
Meloxicam tablets United States prescribing information section 12.1 (openFDA drug label endpoint, ANDA 077944); Castellsague J et al., Drug Saf 2012;35:1127-1146 (SOS project)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
contested
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
On hard gastrointestinal endpoints it sits with diclofenac, not with celecoxib
In plain words
The reason to choose meloxicam is usually the stomach. In the largest pooled analysis of observational studies, meloxicam’s risk of serious upper gastrointestinal complications was 3.47 times that of non-use — nearly double ibuprofen’s and more than double celecoxib’s.
What was measured
Pooled adjusted relative risk of upper gastrointestinal complications against non-use, by individual NSAID
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
The SOS project meta-analysis pooled 28 cohort and case-control studies providing adjusted estimates for upper gastrointestinal complications against non-use of NSAIDs. Pooled relative risks ranged from 1.43 for aceclofenac to 18.45 for azapropazone. Below 2: aceclofenac, celecoxib 1.45 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.81) and ibuprofen 1.84 (1.54 to 2.20). Between 2 and 4: rofecoxib 2.32, sulindac 2.89, diclofenac 3.34 (2.79 to 3.99), meloxicam 3.47 (2.19 to 5.50), nimesulide 3.83 and ketoprofen 3.92. Between 4 and 5: tenoxicam, naproxen 4.10 (3.22 to 5.23), indometacin 4.14 and diflunisal. Above 5: piroxicam 7.43, ketorolac 11.50 and azapropazone. High daily doses carried risks two to three times those of low daily doses. So meloxicam is better than the older oxicams it descends from — piroxicam is at 7.43 — and worse than the two drugs it is most often chosen over. These are observational data with the confounding that implies, and they are the only hard-endpoint data comparing these molecules directly.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
MELISSA and SELECT measured dyspepsia over 28 days, and meloxicam lost on efficacy
In plain words
The two trials that made meloxicam’s reputation enrolled nearly eighteen thousand people — for twenty-eight days, measuring reported side effects rather than bleeds. Serious ulcer complications were not significantly different, and in one trial pain relief consistently favoured the comparator, with significantly more people quitting meloxicam because it was not working.
What was measured
Gastrointestinal adverse event rates, hard ulcer complication counts, efficacy on visual analogue scales and withdrawal for lack of efficacy over 28 days
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
MELISSA randomised 9,323 osteoarthritis patients to meloxicam 7.5 mg or diclofenac slow-release 100 mg for 28 days. Gastrointestinal adverse events were 13% against 19% (P<0.001), driven by dyspepsia, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Perforations, ulcers or bleeds were 5 on meloxicam against 7 on diclofenac — explicitly reported as not significant — though no endoscopically verified ulcer complication occurred on meloxicam against four on diclofenac, and hospitalisation was 5 patient-days against 121. The trial also reported that differences in efficacy on visual analogue scales consistently favoured diclofenac with 95% confidence intervals not crossing zero, and that significantly more patients discontinued meloxicam for lack of efficacy (80 of 4,635 against 49 of 4,688, P<0.01). SELECT randomised 8,656 patients to meloxicam 7.5 mg or piroxicam 20 mg for 28 days: adverse events 22.5% against 27.9% (P<0.001), gastrointestinal adverse events 10.3% against 15.4% (P<0.001), and perforations, ulcers or bleeds 7 against 16 (relative risk 1.4), with four complicated events all in the piroxicam arm. Three limits define what these trials can support: the endpoints are tolerability rather than complications, the duration is one month in a disease treated for decades, and the comparators are a diclofenac dose below its most-used one and piroxicam, which the observational data later placed at a relative risk of 7.43 — the second worst NSAID examined.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The oral label has no acute pain indication, and the pharmacokinetics say why
In plain words
Meloxicam is handed out constantly for a wrenched back or after a tooth extraction. Peak blood concentration comes four to five hours after the dose, steady state takes five days, and the label’s three indications are all chronic arthritis.
What was measured
Licensed indications, time to peak plasma concentration, time to steady state and elimination half-life
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Section 1 of the meloxicam tablet label lists osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and pauciarticular or polyarticular course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in patients weighing at least 60 kg. There is no acute pain indication, in contrast to celecoxib, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac potassium and ketorolac, all of which carry one. Section 12.3 explains the pharmacology behind that: mean peak concentration is achieved within four to five hours of a 7.5 mg tablet under fasted conditions, which the label itself describes as indicating prolonged drug absorption; steady-state concentrations are reached by day five; the elimination half-life is about 20 hours; and a second concentration peak occurs around 12 to 14 hours post-dose, suggesting biliary recycling. A drug that peaks at four to five hours and stabilises on day five is a maintenance analgesic. Prescribing it for pain that needs to be gone within the hour is an extrapolation the label does not support and the pharmacokinetics contradict.
Source
Meloxicam tablets United States prescribing information, sections 1 and 12.3 (openFDA drug label endpoint, ANDA 077944)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Myocardial infarction risk is significantly raised, above ibuprofen and celecoxib
In plain words
In the pooled observational analysis of heart attacks, meloxicam’s relative risk was 1.25 and the confidence interval excluded no effect. Ibuprofen and celecoxib did not reach significance; naproxen was lowest.
What was measured
Pooled random-effects relative risk of acute myocardial infarction against non-use, by individual NSAID
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The SOS project meta-analysis of 25 publications covering 18 independent study populations reported random-effects relative risks for acute myocardial infarction against non-use: naproxen 1.06 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.20), celecoxib 1.12 (1.00 to 1.24), ibuprofen 1.14 (0.98 to 1.31), meloxicam 1.25 (1.04 to 1.49), rofecoxib 1.34 (1.22 to 1.48), diclofenac 1.38 (1.26 to 1.52), indometacin 1.40 (1.21 to 1.62), etodolac 1.55 (1.16 to 2.06) and etoricoxib 1.97 (1.35 to 2.89). Heterogeneity between studies was present. Except for naproxen, higher risk was generally associated with higher doses, and in patients with prior coronary heart disease, use of three months or less was already associated with increased risk. Meloxicam therefore sits above the two drugs it is most often preferred to on both axes at once — gastrointestinal complications and myocardial infarction — which is the opposite of the trade-off its reputation implies.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Exposure varies about five-fold between the populations that take it
In plain words
The same 15 mg tablet produces very different blood levels in a healthy young man, an elderly woman, someone with kidney failure and someone with liver disease — and the label’s own table shows the range.
What was measured
Peak concentration, time to peak and apparent clearance across healthy adults, elderly males and females, renal failure and hepatic insufficiency
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label’s pharmacokinetic table reports peak concentration on 15 mg meloxicam capsules of 2.3 µg/mL (CV 59%) in elderly males, 3.2 µg/mL (24%) in elderly females, 0.59 µg/mL (36%) in renal failure and 0.84 µg/mL (29%) in hepatic insufficiency, against 1.05 µg/mL (20%) for a 7.5 mg tablet in healthy male adults. Apparent clearance ranges from 5.1 mL/min in elderly females to 19 mL/min in renal failure. Time to peak stretches to 10 hours (CV 87%) in hepatic insufficiency. Absolute bioavailability is 89%. A high-fat breakfast raises peak concentration of the capsule by about 22% without changing total exposure. The practical consequence is that "7.5 mg" and "15 mg" describe the tablet, not the exposure, and the population in whom exposure is highest — elderly women — is also the population at highest baseline risk of the gastrointestinal and renal effects that exposure drives.
Source
Meloxicam tablets United States prescribing information section 12.3, Table 4 (openFDA drug label endpoint, ANDA 077944)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
How many documents were read
122 documents were read for this substance.
RNAWiki source record
117 of them state the same bioavailability, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
80 of them state the same tMax, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
VG2QF83CGL
CAS registry number
71125-38-7
PubChem compound
54677470
RxNorm concept
41493
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✓ Passed
Safety mode resolved
Suppression classes recorded: S3, S6.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
What the approval register records
34 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA020938, approved 20000413 to BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
3 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A long-half-life once-daily NSAID whose reputation for being a gentle, selective, fast-acting painkiller survives none of the three checks: its label claims no selectivity, its time to peak concentration is four to five hours with steady state on day five and no acute pain indication, and in pooled observational data its upper gastrointestinal complication risk is 3.47-fold — above ibuprofen at 1.84 and celecoxib at 1.45, and level with diclofenac.
Recorded evidence blocks (13)
Q2
What did Meloxicam's largest trial (22639 people) and its longest (8.2 years) measure?
22639 people in Meloxicam's largest registered study, 8.2 years in its longest registered window, measuring The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Total and the 3 Subscales Scores (Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function) at Screening 1 by Using a Paper Worksheet and a… ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
22 phase3, 20 phase1, 15 phase2, 13 phase4, 8 na, 6 na or unstated; NCT00447759; 2015-08; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2025, NCT05695352.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Meloxicam was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase3
22
phase1
20
phase2
15
phase4
13
na
8
na or unstated
6
1 more recorded row
Last recorded human testNCT05695352
2025-11-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
From mouse to human: where has Meloxicam shown lifespan?
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Total and the 3 Subscales Scores (Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function) at… — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
mouse
biomarker
rat
lifespan
dog
mechanism-only
humanNCT01430559
healthspan; The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Total and the 3 Subscales Scores (Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function) at Screening 1 by Using a Paper Worksheet and a Personalized Electronic LogPad System…; 82
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
6 of Meloxicam's trials stopped: accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?
accrual/recruitment (3), funding/business (1) and other (2): Meloxicam's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
"Internal business decision not to move forward with study"; 6 of 82 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT02405793
withdrawn; "Internal business decision not to move forward with study"
NCT03473665
terminated; "Slow recruitment"
NCT03586934
withdrawn; "Difficult to enroll patients for the study"
NCT04115098
terminated; "lack of recruitment"
NCT04766996
terminated; "Loss of surgery team member deemed the study procedures impossible to achieve, and no replacement could be found in a timely manner to complete trial as initially planned."
NCT05315479
terminated; "Anjeso (N1539) NDA Withdrawn"
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Human studies of Meloxicam used Meloxicam Tablets 15 mg — over how long?
"Meloxicam Versus Ibuprofen for Pain Control After Third Molar Exodontia in Adult Patients"; n 68; "Meloxicam effectiveness for post-surgical pain control."; 2025-01-20
NCT07158476
"Efficacy of Methylprednisolone for Pain Control After ACL Repair"; n 90; "Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores"; 2031-09
NCT07200544
"Meloxicam in Mohs Micrographic Surgery"; n 300; "To evaluate the effect of the use of Meloxicam vs SoC on post-operative pain levels in participants undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery."; 2026-08-02
NCT07493226
"Efficacy of Chemically Distinct Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Pain Phenotypes in Adhesive Capsulitis"; n 120; "VAS pain (0-10) (night and movement)"; 2027-03-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q9
Which 25 trials of Meloxicam posted no result?
Posted no result
25 of 25 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00042068, NCT00649077, NCT00649675, NCT01161134, NCT00239395 and NCT01161147, and 19 more
Completion dates
oldest 2003-07; newest 2023-04-26
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00042068
2003-07
NCT00649077
2004-09
NCT00649675
2004-09
NCT01161134
2004-11
NCT00239395
2004-12
NCT01161147
2004-12
14 further recorded trials
NCT00239382
2004-12-31
NCT00601887
2005-04
NCT00618163
2005-04
NCT00152919
2009-05
NCT00945763
2009-11
NCT01084161
2011-01
NCT02298218
2011-12
NCT01147289
2012-04
NCT01839643
2013-06-06
NCT05125588
2014-02-26
NCT00447759
2015-08
NCT02706054
2015-12
NCT02255045
2016-03-16
NCT01638962
2016-07
Q10
At the median, Meloxicam's trials enrolled 80 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
80
Largest enrolment
22639
Registered trials counted
82
Q11
What do 1995 spontaneous reports say about Meloxicam — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Meloxicam appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 1995 reaction mentions were counted: drug hypersensitivity 535; arthralgia 217; gastrointestinal haemorrhage 214; joint swelling 165. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL599 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
drug hypersensitivity
535
arthralgia
217
gastrointestinal haemorrhage
214
joint swelling
165
pain in extremity
165
rheumatoid arthritis
161
4 more recorded rows
peripheral swelling
149
musculoskeletal stiffness
145
drug intolerance
135
fibromyalgia
109
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q12
Meloxicam and CYP2C9 and CYP3A4: shared by which compounds?
CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 appear in Meloxicam's recorded interaction sentences, 2 in all. openfda-label+europepmc · 2026-08-30
Interpretation pharmacokinetics
Show the evidence
CYP2C9pharmacokinetics
In vitro studies indicate that CYP2C9 (cytochrome P450 metabolizing enzyme) plays an important role in this metabolic pathway with a minor contribution of the CYP3A4 isozyme.
CYP3A4pharmacokinetics
In vitro studies indicate that CYP2C9 (cytochrome P450 metabolizing enzyme) plays an important role in this metabolic pathway with a minor contribution of the CYP3A4 isozyme.
recorded 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q13
Was Meloxicam studied with fasting and exercise?
fasting and exercise are named in Meloxicam's label sentences: "This trial investigated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and bioequivalence of single oral doses of Aomei meloxicam (15 mg) and Mobic meloxicam (15 mg) in healthy volunteers under fasting and fed conditions." openfda-label+europepmc · 2026-08-30
2 recorded statements; fasting, exercise
Show the evidence
fasting
This trial investigated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and bioequivalence of single oral doses of Aomei meloxicam (15 mg) and Mobic meloxicam (15 mg) in healthy volunteers under fasting and fed conditions.
exercise
A randomized blinded placebo-controlled crossover study was conducted to examine the effects of treatment with phenylbutazone, meloxicam, or a placebo (control solution) on renal responses to the administration of furosemide, dobutamine, and exercise (15 minutes at 60% of maximum heart rate).
recorded 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q14
What is recorded about Meloxicam and AMPK?
"In this study, meloxicam restored Cdon expression through Ampk activation, thereby preserving muscle integrity and functional capacity in aged muscle." — where Meloxicam and AMPK appear together. Europe PMC · pathway abstract search · 2026-08-12
AMPK, autophagy; PMID 42587039, 26481188
Show the evidence
AMPKPMID 42587039
"In this study, meloxicam restored Cdon expression through Ampk activation, thereby preserving muscle integrity and functional capacity in aged muscle."
autophagy
PMID 26481188
"We found that meloxicam led to apoptosis and autophagy in HepG2 and Bel-7402 cells via a mechanism that involved ER stress."
PMID 26481188
"Up-regulation of GRP78 signalling pathway from meloxicam-induced ER stress was critical for activation of autophagy."
PMID 26481188
"Blocking autophagy by 3-methyladenine (3-MA) or Atg5 siRNA knock-down enhanced meloxicam lethality for HCC by activation of ER stress-related apoptosis."
AMPKPMID 26481188
"Blocking AMPK with a chemical inhibitor inhibited autophagy suggesting that meloxicam-regulated autophagy requires activation of AMPK."
recorded 2026-08-12 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 11 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.