Channeling and prevalence of cardiovascular contraindications in users of cyclooxygenase 2 selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs

OBJECTIVE: To assess use and channeling of cyclooxygenase 2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) over time and to estimate the percentage of coxib users with cardiovascular contraindications. METHODS: The study population comprised all coxib and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) users in the Integrated Primary Care Information project between January 2000 and December 2004. The prevalence of risk factors for NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications, cardiovascular disease, and cerebrovascular disease at the start of treatment was compared between users of coxibs and users of nonselective NSAIDs. RESULTS: The study population included 72,841 nonselective NSAID users and 10,739 coxib users. The prevalence of risk factors for NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications was higher in coxib users than nonselective NSAID users (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.10-1.26). Similarly, the prevalence of prior cardiovascular disease was higher in coxib users than in nonselective NSAID users (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.28-1.43). Channeling of coxibs to patients with NSAID-related gastrointestinal risk factors declined after 2001 but increased again in 2004, whereas the channeling of coxibs to patients with cardiovascular disease remained constant. Less than 15% of all coxib users had history of ischemic coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Among coxib users with increased risk for NSAID-related gastrointestinal disorders, 27% had history of ischemic coronary or cerebrovascular disease. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that coxibs were preferentially prescribed to patients with risk factors for NSAID-related gastrointestinal disorders and/or cardiovascular diseases. Only one-quarter of coxib users with increased risk for NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications had cardiovascular conditions compatible with recent European safety contraindications for coxibs.     

Meta-analysis of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and their effects on blood pressure

BACKGROUND: Nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely prescribed and are associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation. The development of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs) raises the issue of the magnitude of BP response compared with nonselective NSAIDs. We therefore performed a meta-analysis comparing the effects of coxibs with placebo, nonselective NSAIDs, and each other on BP elevation and hypertension. METHODS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials involving coxibs were published before May 2004, with a total of 45 451 participants in which BP data were available. The Cohen method statistically combined weighted mean difference (WMD). The Der Simonian and Laird method pooled results concerning the relative risk (RR) of developing hypertension and the RR of clinically important BP elevations. RESULTS: Among the trials analyzed, coxibs caused a WMD point estimate increase in systolic and diastolic BP compared with placebo (3.85/1.06 mm Hg) and nonselective NSAIDs (2.83/1.34 mm Hg). Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors were associated with a nonsignificantly higher RR of causing hypertension compared with placebo (RR, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.84; P = .10) and nonselective NSAIDs (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.78; P = .23). Rofecoxib induced a WMD point estimate increase in systolic BP (2.83 mm Hg) and a nonsignificantly higher risk of developing clinically important systolic BP elevation (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.00-2.26; P = .05) compared with celecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors were associated with a point-estimate BP elevation compared with placebo and nonselective NSAIDs. There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of developing hypertension compared with nonselective NSAIDs, as was observed with rofecoxib compared with celecoxib. These BP elevations may be clinically significant in relation to increased cardiovascular risk.     

Prevention and treatment of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal injury

Opinion statement NSAIDs increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Those at risk should be considered for alternatives to NSAID therapy, modifications of risk factors, and prevention strategies with co-therapy with gastroprotective agents (proton-pump inhibitors [PPIs] or misoprostol) or COX-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs). Since coxibs, and probably other nonselective NSAIDs, may increase the risk of cardiovascular events, prevention strategies must take into account both GI and cardiovascular risk factors. All NSAIDs and coxibs should be prescribed at the lowest possible dose and for the shortest period of time. In patients with GI risk factors but no cardiovascular risk, coxibs or NSAIDs plus PPI or misoprostol are valid options. Patients with a history of ulcer bleeding should receive coxib plus PPI therapy and should be tested and treated for Helicobacter pylori infection. Most patients with increased cardiovascular risk will be treated with antiplatelet agents. It is not known whether co-therapy with low-dose aspirin will reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, but it will further increase GI risk. It is currently unclear whether the risk of developing upper GI events with coxib plus aspirin is lower than it is with NSAIDs plus aspirin. However, all these patients should benefit from PPI co-therapy. Helicobacter pylori eradication should be considered as an additional therapeutic option when we want to further reduce the GI risk in specific patients. When the lower GI tract is of concern, coxib rather than NSAID therapy should be considered as the first option. Coxib therapy has better GI tolerance than NSAIDs, but patients with peptic ulcers or dyspepsia during NSAID/coxib treatment need PPI co-therapy.     

Simultaneous assessment of short-term gastrointestinal benefits and cardiovascular risks of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: an instrumental variable analysis

OBJECTIVE: To simultaneously assess the short-term reduction in risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications and increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (MI) by celecoxib compared with rofecoxib and several nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) using instrumental variable analysis. METHODS: A population of 49,711 Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 years and older who initiated nonselective NSAID or selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor therapy between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2002, was identified. The increase in risk of GI complications and MI within 180 days after initiation of NSAID (rofecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen compared with celecoxib) therapy was assessed using instrumental variable analysis. RESULTS: Compared with nonselective NSAIDs, celecoxib reduced the risk of GI complications by 1.4 per 100 users but increased the risk of MI by 0.3 per 100 users. Rofecoxib decreased GI complications by 1.1 per 100 users and increased the risk of MI by 0.3 per 100 users. Using celecoxib as the reference exposure showed an increase in the MI risk for rofecoxib (risk difference [RD] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.20, 3.01) and diclofenac (RD 6.07, 95% CI -0.02, 12.15). The RD for naproxen as well as its upper 95% CI was the lowest of all NSAIDs (RD -0.30, 95% CI -2.74, 2.14) and there was no significant difference in GI complication rates among all NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: In this instrumental variable analysis, diclofenac and rofecoxib had the least favorable benefit-risk balance among NSAIDs in older adults.     

Appropriate use of NSAIDs: considering cardiovascular risk in the elderly

In the first of this two-part article, we reviewed essential gastrointestinal (GI) data necessary for choosing selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) versus nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as other NSAID-related GI issues. Although GI considerations are critical to appropriate NSAID selection, the worldwide withdrawal of rofecoxib because of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events has changed the focus of appropriate NSAID selection. In part 2, we discuss relevant CV adverse effects related to NSAID use. Based upon data reviewed, we believe there are differences between coxibs and that all NSAIDs, including nonselective agents, have some degree of CV risk. Their use should be based upon patient's risks and benefits. Our clinical use pathway or algorithm will continue to frame the ongoing discussion and guide clinicians along what has become a difficult decision in daily practice.     

Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding associated with selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, traditional non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin and combinations

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of coxibs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and aspirin treatment are under intense debate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of peptic ulcer upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) associated with the use of coxibs, traditional NSAIDs, aspirin or combinations of these drugs in clinical practice. METHODS: A hospital-based, case-control study in the general community of patients from the National Health System in Spain. The study included 2777 consecutive patients with endoscopy-proved major UGIB because of the peptic lesions and 5532 controls matched by age, hospital and month of admission. Adjusted relative risk (adj RR) of UGIB determined by conditional logistic regression analysis is provided. RESULTS: Use of non-aspirin-NSAIDs increased the risk of UGIB (adj RR 5.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.5 to 6.2). Among non-aspirin-NSAIDs, aceclofenac (adj RR 3.1; 95% CI 2.3 to 4.2) had the lowest RR, whereas ketorolac (adj RR 14.4; 95% CI 5.2 to 39.9) had the highest. Rofecoxib treatment increased the risk of UGIB (adj RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 4.0), whereas celecoxib, paracetamol or concomitant use of a proton pump inhibitor with an NSAID presented no increased risk. Non-aspirin antiplatelet treatment (clopidogrel/ticlopidine) had a similar risk of UGIB (adj RR 2.8; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.2) to cardioprotective aspirin at a dose of 100 mg/day (adj RR 2.7; 95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) or anticoagulants (adj RR 2.8; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.7). An apparent interaction was found between low-dose aspirin and use of non-aspirin-NSAIDs, coxibs or thienopyridines, which increased further the risk of UGIB in a similar way. CONCLUSIONS: Coxib use presents a lower RR of UGIB than non-selective NSAIDs. However, when combined with low-dose aspirin, the differences between non-selective NSAIDs and coxibs tend to disappear. Treatment with either non-aspirin antiplatelet or cardioprotective aspirin has a similar risk of UGIB.     

Hormone therapy and mortality during a 14-year follow-up of 14 324 Norwegian women

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD) and all causes in relation to use of any hormone therapy (HT) and HT with oestradiol and norethisterone or levonorgestrel. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Women in three Norwegian counties were invited to a health survey in 1985-88 and 82.8% participated. In all 14 324 post- or perimenopausal women aged 35-62 years, including 702 HT users with a mean age of 48.8 years, were followed for 14 years. RESULTS: Women using HT had mortality from all causes and CVD comparable with that of nonusers. The relative risk (RRs) for CVD mortality amongst all women were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.35-1.33) for users of HT, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.43-2.17) for users of HT with norethisterone or levonorgestrel. Amongst women free of self-reported cardiovascular health problems at baseline all-cause, CVD and CHD mortality tended to be lower amongst users of HT whilst HT use was linked with increased mortality amongst women with cardiovascular health problems. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of women around the usual age of menopause all-cause or CVD mortality amongst users of HT, most often oestradiol combined with norethisterone or levonorgestrel, was not markedly different from that of nonusers. Early CHD events amongst HT users prior to the baseline survey, together with selective inclusion of healthy subjects, may in part explain protective effects of HT on CHD reported from previous observational studies.     

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: The comparative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was determined. METHODS: The results of studies of a suitable size in colonic adenoma and arthritis-that had been published in English and from which crude data about MIs could be extracted-were evaluated. Medline, Embase and Cinahl (2000-2006) databases, as well as published bibliographies, were used as data sources. Systematic reviews examined MI risks in case-control and cohort studies, as well as in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: 14 case-control studies (74 673 MI patients, 368 968 controls) showed no significant association of NSAIDs with MI in a random-effects model (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.37) and a small risk of MI in a fixed-effects model (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35). Sensitivity analyses showed higher risks of MI in large European studies involving matched controls. Six cohort studies (387 983 patient years, 1 120 812 control years) showed no significant risk of MI with NSAIDs (RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07); the risk was higher with rofecoxib (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.34) but not with any other NSAIDs. Four RCTs of NSAIDs in colonic adenoma (6000 patients) showed an increased risk of MI (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01). Fourteen RCTs in arthritis (45 425 patients) showed more MIs with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs (Peto OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4), but fewer serious upper gastrointestinal events (Peto OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53). CONCLUSION: The overall risk of MI with NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs was small; rofecoxib showed the highest risk. There was an increased MI risk with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs compared with NSAIDs, but less serious upper gastrointestinal toxicity.     

Simultaneous assessment of short‐term gastrointestinal benefits and cardiovascular risks of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: An instrumental variable analysis

Objective

To simultaneously assess the short‐term reduction in risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications and increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (MI) by celecoxib compared with rofecoxib and several nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) using instrumental variable analysis.

Methods

A population of 49,711 Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 years and older who initiated nonselective NSAID or selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor therapy between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2002, was identified. The increase in risk of GI complications and MI within 180 days after initiation of NSAID (rofecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen compared with celecoxib) therapy was assessed using instrumental variable analysis.

Results

Compared with nonselective NSAIDs, celecoxib reduced the risk of GI complications by 1.4 per 100 users but increased the risk of MI by 0.3 per 100 users. Rofecoxib decreased GI complications by 1.1 per 100 users and increased the risk of MI by 0.3 per 100 users. Using celecoxib as the reference exposure showed an increase in the MI risk for rofecoxib (risk difference [RD] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] −0.20, 3.01) and diclofenac (RD 6.07, 95% CI −0.02, 12.15). The RD for naproxen as well as its upper 95% CI was the lowest of all NSAIDs (RD −0.30, 95% CI −2.74, 2.14) and there was no significant difference in GI complication rates among all NSAIDs.

Conclusion

In this instrumental variable analysis, diclofenac and rofecoxib had the least favorable benefit–risk balance among NSAIDs in older adults.

     

Approaches to Decongestion in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Type 2 diabetes increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from two- to four-fold. In our large Finnish population-based study published in 1998 subjects with medication for type 2 diabetes had as high a risk of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) during the 7- year follow-up as non-diabetic subjects with a prior MI, suggesting that type 2 diabetes is a CVD equivalent. In another large study, including all 3.3 million residents of Denmark, subjects requiring glucose-lowering therapy exhibited a CVD risk similar to that of non-diabetic subjects with a prior MI. Subsequent studies have not systematically replicated aforementioned results. Some studies have supported the concept that type 2 diabetes is a CVD equivalent only in some subgroups, and many studies have reported negative findings. This is likely to be due to many differences across the studies published, for example ethnicity, gender, age and other demographic factors of the populations involved, study design, validation of diabetes status and CVD events, statistical analyses (adjustments for confounding factors), duration of diabetes, and treatment of hyperglycemia among diabetic participants. Varying results reflect the fact that not all diabetic patients are at a similar risk for CVD. Therefore, CVD risk assessment and the tailoring of preventive measures should be done individually, taking into consideration each patient’s long-term risk of developing cardiovascular events.     

Prior aspirin use predicts worse outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. PURSUIT Investigators. Platelet IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy

Aspirin is beneficial in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular events, but patients who have events while taking aspirin may have worse outcomes than those not on aspirin. We investigated the association between prior aspirin use and clinical outcomes in 9,461 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the Platelet IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) trial, before and after adjustment for baseline factors. We also examined whether eptifibatide has a differential treatment effect in prior aspirin users. Prior aspirin users were less likely to have an enrollment myocardial infarction (MI) (vs unstable angina) (43.9% vs 48.8%, p = 0.001) but more likely to have death or MI at 30 days (16.1% vs 13.0%, p = 0.001) and at 6 months (19.9% vs 15.9%, p = 0.001). After adjustment, prior aspirin users remained less likely to have an enrollment MI (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.97) and more likely to have death or MI at 30 days (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.33) but not at 6 months (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.33). In a multivariable model, eptifibatide did not have a different treatment effect in prior aspirin users compared with nonusers (p = 0.534). Prior aspirin users had fewer enrollment MIs but worse long-term outcomes than nonusers. We found no evidence for a different treatment effect of eptifibatide in prior aspirin users.     

Diuretic versus alpha-blocker as first-step antihypertensive therapy: final results from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind, active, controlled clinical trial conducted to determine whether newer antihypertensive agents, including doxazosin, an alpha-blocker, differ from chlorthalidone, a diuretic, with respect to coronary heart disease (CHD) and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in hypertensive patients at high risk of CHD. In February 2000, the doxazosin treatment arm was discontinued, and findings through December 1999 were reported. This report includes an additional 9232 participant-years and 939 CVD events. At 623 clinical centers, patients (aged >or=55 years) with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor were randomly assigned to either chlorthalidone or doxazosin. The primary outcome measure was the combined occurrence of fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), analyzed by intent to treat; prespecified secondary outcome measures included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CHD (fatal CHD, nonfatal MI, hospitalized angina, and coronary revascularization), and combined CVD (combined CHD, stroke, angina treated outside the hospital, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease). Mean follow-up was 3.2 years. There was no difference in primary outcome between the arms (relative risk [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.15). All-cause mortality also did not differ (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.13). However, the doxazosin arm compared with the chlorthalidone arm had a higher risk of stroke (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.46) and combined CVD (RR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.27). These findings confirm the superiority of diuretic-based over alpha-blocker-based antihypertensive treatment for the prevention of CVD.     

Choosing nonselective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors in the elderly. A clinical use pathway

The literature has well established that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) are very effective in treating pain and inflammation, but these drugs are associated with significant gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. This is especially true in the elderly patient population. Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (coxibs) were developed to decrease the incidence of GI adverse events. Nevertheless, recent concerns regarding coxibs and their association with adverse cardiovascular events have led physicians to re-examine the appropriate use of all NSAIDs. Part 1 of this two-part article reviews essential data related to adverse GI events to help physicians select appropriate patients to receive nonselective NSAIDs or coxibs. Other considerations, such as the benefits of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the mitigating effects of concurrent aspirin use, are also discussed. Our clinical use pathway or algorithm will frame the discussion and guide clinicians through what has become a difficult decision in daily practice.     

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Relatively Selective COX-2 Inhibitors Versus Coxibs for the Prevention of NSAID-Induced Gastrointestinal Injury

Currently 2 difference classes of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, coxibs and relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors, are available for patients requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy; their gastroprotective effect is hardly directly compared.The aim of this study was to compare the gastroprotective effect of relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors with coxibs.MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to March 2015) were searched for potential eligible studies.We included randomized controlled trials comparing coxibs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, parecoxib, and lumiracoxib), relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors (nabumetone, meloxicam, and etodolac), and nonselective NSAIDs with a study duration ≥4 weeks.Comparative effectiveness and safety data were pooled by Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were ulcer complications and symptomatic ulcer. Summary effect-size was calculated as risk ratio (RR), together with the 95% confidence interval (CI).This study included 36 trials with a total of 112,351 participants. Network meta-analyses indicated no significant difference between relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs regarding ulcer complications (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.47–3.27), symptomatic ulcer (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.09–3.92), and endoscopic ulcer (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.37–2.96). Network meta-analyses adjusting potential influential factors (age, sex, previous ulcer disease, and follow-up time), and sensitivity analyses did not reveal any major change to the main results. Network meta-analyses suggested that relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs were associated with comparable incidences of total adverse events (AEs) (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93–1.31), gastrointestinal AEs (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87–1.25), total withdrawals (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.74–1.33), and gastrointestinal AE-related withdrawals (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57–1.74).Relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors appear to be associated with similar gastroprotective effect and tolerability as coxibs. Owing to the indirectness of the comparisons, future research is required to confirm the study conclusion.     

Acetaminophen or NSAIDs for the treatment of osteoarthritis

Although non-pharmacological interventions are the cornerstone of osteoarthritis management, analgesics are an important component of treatment during the symptomatic periods of the disease. In this respect, current practice guidelines advocate the use of a simple analgesic, acetaminophen, or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), given either systemically or topically as first-line or second-line drug therapies. The present paper aims first to assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of these medications. Given the increasing importance of patient involvement in decision-making, the following key practical issue regarding acetaminophen and NSAIDs will then be addressed: 'which drug do patients prefer?' Regarding NSAIDs, a further question concerns the place for non-selective agents and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors (coxibs) in the light of new warnings and contraindications concerning coxibs in patients with increased risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events.