Unmet Needs in Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug-induced Upper Gastrointestinal Diseases

The use of traditional and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for the relief of pain and inflammation increases the risk of gastrointestinal side-effects ranging from dyspepsia to symptomatic and complicated ulcers. The COX-2-selective agents were designed to provide comparable pain relief to traditional NSAID, with a reduced rate of adverse gastrointestinal events. However, there appears to be little clinically significant difference between COX-2 and traditional NSAID in terms of dyspepsia, a common cause of the discontinuation of a traditional NSAID. Furthermore, concomitant aspirin use substantially reduces the gastrointestinal safety advantage of COX-2-selective drugs. An increase in the numbers of people taking low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection, an aging population and potential chemoprevention benefits are resulting in the rising consumption of NSAID. Proton pump inhibitors have a demonstrated role in the treatment and prevention of both non-selective NSAID and selective COX-2 inhibitor-related upper gastrointestinal damage. However, the use of gastroprotective agents is far from optimal, and many high-risk patients are not being clearly identified. At the same time, inappropriate low-dose aspirin use is placing low cardiovascular risk patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Combined with the recent withdrawal of rofecoxib and valdecoxib from the market because of excess cardiovascular adverse events, and concerns about the safety of other COX-2 inhibitors, a review of strategies to reduce the overall risks in users of anti-inflammatory drugs is timely. This article examines the current issues of understanding and managing NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal diseases.

Systematic review: coxibs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or no cyclooxygenase inhibitors in gastroenterological high-risk patients?

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been marketed as alternatives of conventional, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with the purpose of reducing/eliminating the risk of ulcer complications. Unexpectedly, randomized-controlled trials revealed that long-term use of coxibs, such as rofecoxib, significantly increased the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, while the use of valdecoxib was associated with potentially life-threatening skin reactions. Subsequently, rofecoxib and valdecoxib were withdrawn from the market. Although more strict precautions for other coxibs, such as celecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib and parecoxib, may be accepted/recommended by regulatory agencies, a critical review of published data suggests that their use may not be justified - even in high-risk patients - taking benefits, costs and risks into consideration. Clinicians should, therefore, never prescribe coxibs to patients with cardiovascular risk factors, and should only reluctantly prescribe coxibs to patients with a history of ulcer disease or dyspepsia to overcome persistent pain due to, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Instead, they should consider using conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in combination with a proton pump inhibitor or a prostaglandin analogue, especially for patients with increased cardiovascular risks, i.e. established ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and/or peripheral arterial disease, or alternatively acetaminophen. An evidence-based algorithm for treatment of a chronic arthritis patient with one or more gastrointestinal risk factors is presented.

Cardiovascular Events Associated with Long-Term Use of Celecoxib, Rofecoxib and Meloxicam in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Using national data (2001-2003), this study explored the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angina, stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in long-term users of rofecoxib and celecoxib in Taiwan and compared this data with that for those using meloxicam.

METHODS

Patients included in the study had used celecoxib, rofecoxib or meloxicam for at least 180 days. Data were taken from National Health Insurance database for the period from 2001 to 2003. Main outcome measurements were the occurrence of AMI, angina, stroke or TIA after the initiation of long-term continuous use of these drugs. Person-time exposures and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated based on data from 9602 eligible patients.

RESULTS

In patients without a history of a cardiovascular event within the year before drug treatment began, the overall rates of AMI, angina, stroke and TIA were 1.1%, 0.6%, 2.0% and 0.6%, respectively. In those with cardiovascular events in the year before treatment began, the overall rates of AMI, angina, stroke and TIA were 5.0%, 4.8%, 6.6% and 5.8%, respectively. Compared with meloxicam users, celecoxib users had lower HRs for the development of AMI (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63, 0.96) and stroke (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.93). Rofecoxib users were at no higher risk of cardiovascular events than those receiving meloxicam. Regardless of treatment, having had a cardiovascular event in the year before treatment began played a significant role in the development of the same cardiovascular event during the prescription period; the HRs associated with having had the same cardiovascular event in the past year, versus not having had such an event, were 3.02 (95% CI 1.44, 6.32) for AMI, 5.82 (95% CI 3.19, 10.63) for angina, 2.44 (95% CI 1.79, 3.33) for stroke and 7.16 (95% CI 3.70, 13.87) for TIA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients taking celecoxib had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those taking meloxicam. Patients taking rofecoxib were not found to be at higher cardiovascular risk than those taking meloxicam. The most significant determinant of cardiovascular risk was a history of such cardiovascular disease in the year preceding treatment initiation. Patients with a history of other medical conditions also appeared to be at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Meloxicam tolerance in hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

Patients with aspirin-sensitive respiratory and skin diseases experience cross reactions to all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) which inhibit cyclooxigenase (COX) enzymes. The need to identify an alternative drug that is safe and reliable is a common problem in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to test the tolerability of meloxicam in NSAID-sensitive patients.

METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2006 we performed single-blind oral challenge tests with meloxicam in NSAID-intolerant patients, exposing them first to placebo and then, after 30 minutes, to the first dose of meloxicam (7.5 mg). After 30 minutes, if no response appeared, the last dose of meloxicam (15 mg) was given, for a total accumulated dose of 22.5 mg. The test was considered positive if urticaria, erythema. and/or angioedema appeared.

RESULTS

We tested 114 patients: 36% men and 64% women whose mean age was 45.81 years. Meloxicam was well tolerated in 109 of the 114 patients (95.62%) and only 5 (4.38%) developed an adverse reaction (urticaria in all cases).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that meloxicam can be a good option for NSAID-intolerant patients: it was safe for over 95% of the patients and is easier to obtain than celecoxib or etoricoxib. However, we think that a patient should be tested in an allergy unit before it is prescribed.

Eicosanoids and the vascular endothelium

Cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes catalyse the biotransformation of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins which subserve important functions in cardiovascular homeostasis. Prostacyclin (PGI2) and prostaglandin (PG)E2, dominant products of COX activityin macro- and microvascular endothelial cells, respectively, in vitro, modulate the interaction of blood cells with the vasculature and contribute to the regulation of blood pressure. COXs are the target for inhibition by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs--which include those selective for COX-2) and for aspirin. Modulation of the interaction between COX products of the vasculature and platelets underlies both the cardioprotection afforded by aspirin and the cardiovascular hazard which characterises specific inhibitors of COX-2.

Cardiovascular risk of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors

Recently, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (coxibs), a class of drugs intended to be painkillers, have created unprecedented controversy because of their cardiovascular risk profile. The controversy has affected the patients, health-care providers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the manufacturers of these agents alike. We summarize the mechanisms of actions of this class of agents, their cardiovascular risk as evident in multiple trials, the basis of their adverse risk profile, and our views on this issue.

Cardiovascular effects of coxibs

A new class of drugs, the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, or coxibs, have recently been marketed as an alternative to conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the basis of a lower risk of gastrointestinal side effects. The recent withdrawal of rofecoxib, along with safety concerns about other COX-2 selective inhibitors raises important questions about the cardiovascular toxicity of these drugs. Recently some concerns arose even for a possible cardiotoxicity of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. From data available so far, it seems that coxibs still remain a rational choice for patients with low cardiovascular risk and high gastrointestinal risk. Long-term studies with a cardiovascular endpoint involving both selective and nonselective anti-inflammatory drugs are warranted.

Comparison of reporting of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in association with selective COX-2 inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis are closely related severe acute life-threatening, drug-induced skin disorders. The US FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (AERS) has received reports of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with the use of the recently introduced selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor NSAIDs, two of which are also sulfonamides.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to review cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis reported to the FDA associated with the use of the selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs celecoxib, rofecoxib and valdecoxib, and to compare reporting rates of the two conditions associated with these drugs to each other, meloxicam (an oxicam NSAID that came on the US market at a similar time) and the background incidence rate.

METHODS

We reviewed all US cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis reported to the FDA AERS database associated with the use of celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib and meloxicam since these agents were first marketed. We utilised AERS and drug use data to calculate reporting rates for each drug after the first 2 years of marketing. We obtained the background rate from the medical literature.

RESULTS

Up to the end of March 2004, there were 63 cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis reported with valdecoxib use, 43 with celecoxib, 17 with rofecoxib (the non-sulfonamide coxib) and none for meloxicam. In the first 2 years of marketing the reporting rate for Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis with valdecoxib was 49 cases per million person-years of use, 6 cases per million person-years for celecoxib and 3 cases per million person-years for rofecoxib. The reporting rates for the sulfonamide coxibs were substantially higher than the background rate of 1.9 cases per million population per year, with the valdecoxib rate being 8-9 times that of celecoxib and approximately 25 times that of the background rate.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong association between Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis and the use of the sulfonamide COX-2 inhibitors, particularly valdecoxib. Physicians should be aware of the possibility of this serious life-threatening event when prescribing these drugs and advise patients to discontinue use at the earliest possible sign or symptom.

Clinical implications of cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors for acute dental pain management: benefits and risks

BACKGROUND; Cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) demonstrate analgesic efficacy for patients who require gastrointestinal safety. The authors discuss the potential benefits and risks of these novel, but expensive, analgesics when used in dentistry.

METHODS

The authors conducted a MEDLINE search focused on the subject headings of common analgesic drugs and COX-2i, using peer-reviewed journals limited to the English language. They selected for review 127 articles that met the criteria. They also tried to identify any randomized controlled trials pertinent to dentistry and indicative of evidence-based medicine. RESULTS. When comparing COX isoforms (COX-1 and COX-2), the authors found that overlapping and mutually exclusively properties coexist. COX-2i originally were developed to minimize interference with the gastroprotective properties of the COX-1 isoform, while selectively preventing prostanoid synthesis expressed solely at sites of bodily trauma or other inflammation. COX-2i were found to provide pain relief equal to or slightly exceeding that offered by many mild narcotics. They may avoid some of the serious side effects that can occur with even short-term use of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacodynamics of COX-2i reveal an agent that includes analgesic, anti-inflammatory and gastroprotective properties but also allows for an undesirable disruption of the delicate hemodynamic balance.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Symptomatic and asymptomatic gastroparietic patients who do not have severe cardiovascular, cerebral or renal ischemic disease benefit from use of COX-2i. Long-term use of these agents in medically compromised patients may prove disastrous.

An update on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors

Selective inhibitors of the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme were developed to treat pain and inflammation while reducing the risk of the serious gastrointestinal side effects seen with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The results of several clinical trials have demonstrated an apparent increased risk of serious cardiovascular events in patients taking the COX-2-selective inhibitors. Although the risk was observed originally with trials conducted with rofecoxib, it was attributed generally to the entire class of COX-2-selective drugs based on a similar mechanism of action and a hypothesis that predicted the possibility of a prothrombotic effect of the drugs compared with nonselective NSAIDs. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that elevated cardiovascular risk is not limited to the use of COX-2-specific inhibitors. An increase in cardiovascular risk actually has been seen with anti-inflammatory drugs of the NSAID class, regardless of whether they are selective or nonselective inhibitors. The US Food and Drug Administration has recommended that all such drugs carry a black box warning for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks.

Topical Analgesia for Chest Tube Removal in Cardiac Patients

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of topical valdecoxib as an analgesic during chest tube removal in postcardiac surgical patients.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

The study was performed in the cardiac intensive care unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-three patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomized to receive either topical valdecoxib or liquid paraffin on the chest tube exit sites.

INTERVENTION

Topical valdecoxib was applied to 1 of the 2 chest tube sites (mediastinal or pericardial) in a randomized manner before drain removal. Liquid paraffin was used as the control on the other tube site. The patient and observer were blinded to the drug and control.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pain was assessed by using the visual analog scale. The heart rate and systolic blood pressure were recorded at each stage by the blinded observer. Statistical analysis of the obtained data was undertaken using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. The median pain scores before, during, and after tube removal in the control group were 2, 5, and 4, respectively. The valdecoxib group had corresponding scores of 1, 2, and 2. The pain scores were significantly lower in the valdecoxib group. No differences were seen in the heart rate and systolic blood pressure between the 2 groups. No adverse effects were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical valdecoxib is a safe and effective topical analgesic for chest tube removal in cardiac patients.

Does multimodal analgesia with acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and patient-controlled analgesia morphine offer advantages over morphine alone? Meta-analyses of randomized trials

The authors analyzed data from 52 randomized placebo-controlled trials (4,893 adults) testing acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors given in conjunction with morphine after surgery. The median of the average 24-h morphine consumption in controls was 49 mg (range, 15-117 mg); it was significantly decreased with all regimens by 15-55%. There was evidence of a reduction in pain intensity at 24 h (1 cm on the 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale) only with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs also significantly reduced the incidence of nausea/vomiting from 28.8% to 22.0% (number needed to treat, 15) and of sedation from 15.4% to 12.7% (number needed to treat, 37) but increased the risk of severe bleeding from 0% to 1.7% (number needed to harm, 59). Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors increased the risk of renal failure in cardiac patients from 0% to 1.4% (number needed to harm, 73). A decrease in morphine consumption is not a good indicator of the usefulness of a supplemental analgesic. There is evidence that the combination of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs with patient-controlled analgesia morphine offers some advantages over morphine alone.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib in the treatment of hemophilic arthropathy

This 2-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, for the treatment of hemophilic arthropathy. In part 1 (6 weeks), 102 patients (> or = 12 years old) with hemophilic arthropathy were randomized to receive 90 mg etoricoxib once daily or placebo (1:1 ratio). In part 2 (6 months), 51 patients taking placebo in part 1 were randomized to receive 90 mg etoricoxib or 25 mg rofecoxib once daily; patients taking etoricoxib in part 1 continued the same treatment. Efficacy end points included Patient Assessment of Arthropathy Pain, Patient Global Assessment of Arthropathy Disease Status, and Investigator Global Assessment of Arthropathy Disease Status. Safety was evaluated at each study visit. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement in all end points versus placebo (P < .001). Fewer patients taking etoricoxib discontinued due to a lack of efficacy versus placebo (P = .048). During part 2, efficacy was maintained; etoricoxib and rofecoxib demonstrated similar results. The most common adverse experiences were upper respiratory infection and headache. The incidence of joint bleeding during part 1 was similar between etoricoxib (66.7%) and placebo (72.6%) and during part 2 between etoricoxib (77.0%) and rofecoxib (78.9%). We conclude that etoricoxib provided superior efficacy versus placebo for the treatment of hemophilic arthropathy and was generally safe and well tolerated.

Cutting Edge: Yin-Yang: Balancing Act of Prostaglandins with Opposing Functions to Regulate Inflammation

For many years, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), a critical enzyme for PG production, has been the favorite target for anti-inflammatory drug development. However, recent revelations regarding the adverse effects of selective COX-2 inhibitors have stimulated intense debate. Interestingly, in the early phase of inflammation, COX-2 facilitates inflammatory PG production while in the late phase it has anti-inflammatory effects. Moreover, although some PGs are proinflammatory, others have anti-inflammatory effects. Thus, it is likely that PGs with opposing effects maintain homeostasis, although the molecular mechanism(s) remains unclear. We report here that an inflammatory PG, PGD2, via its receptor, mediates the activation of NF-kappaB stimulating COX-2 gene expression. Most interestingly, an anti-inflammatory PG (PGA1) suppresses NF-kappaB activation and inhibits COX-2 gene expression. We propose that while pro- and anti-inflammatory PGs counteract each other to maintain homeostasis, selective COX-2 inhibitors may disrupt this balance, thereby resulting in reported adverse effects.

Cardiovascular issues of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs

BACKGROUND

Rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market because of increased death from cardiovascular (CV) events. Other selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may share this risk, but to what extent is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the available evidence using a PubMed search for increased CV risk with COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs, explores possible mechanisms, and makes recommendations for their appropriate use in clinical practice.

DISCUSSION

Rofecoxib, celecoxib, and the combination of valdecoxib and parecoxib have been found in prospective trials to increase CV risk. NSAIDs have also been found to be associated with increased CV risk in observational studies, but large randomised controlled trials with adequate follow up are required to further investigate this. Recommendations are to use drugs at lowest dose and for shortest duration possible. In patients with or at high risk for CV disease, COX-2 inhibitors are contraindicated. A traditional NSAID plus proton pump inhibitor may be used, but with caution.

Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize new information regarding the use of selective inhibitors of the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme, emphasizing recent developments regarding cardiovascular risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are as effective as nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in relieving pain and inflammation but are associated with significantly fewer gastric, duodenal, and intestinal ulcers and ulcer complications. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors may also reduce colorectal polyp development or recurrence as well as reduce the risk of colorectal and esophageal cancer. Some, but not all, studies have suggested increased myocardial infarction with certain cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, in particular rofecoxib. It is unclear whether this is a class effect because there are inconclusive data to incriminate celecoxib despite a relatively large number of clinical trials enrolling a large number of patients. Rofecoxib was voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer. The European Medicines Agency concluded that cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are contraindicated in patients with established cardiovascular disease, should be used with caution in patients with risk factors, and were justified in patients at risk for serious gastrointestinal adverse events.

SUMMARY

Rofecoxib, but perhaps not all cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, may be associated with increased risk for myocardial infarction. It is unclear whether nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs increase or decrease the rate of myocardial infarction. The final truth awaits further studies.

Current Status of NonsteroidalAnti-Inflammatory Drugsin Physiatry

The gastropathy associated with the administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for musculoskeletal pain disorders has contributed to significant morbidity and mortality. The distinction between the cyclooxygenase 1 and 2 enzymatic properties lead to the development of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitory NSAIDs with the prospect of reducing NSAID-related gastropathy while maintaining anti-inflammatory properties. Initial studies of the efficacy and safety of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors seemed promising. Larger clinical trials were carried out to reinforce the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase-2 anti-inflammatory medications (coxibs). Further analysis of these trials raised concern with regard to both the efficacy and safety of this class of drugs. The most recent clinical trials of the coxibs have demonstrated significant cardiovascular thrombogenic potential, particularly at higher doses. Clinical investigators and regulatory agencies have questioned whether these findings mitigate the efficacy of coxibs and NSAIDs in general in the prophylaxis of colonic polyps, Alzheimer's disease, and more saliently, musculoskeletal pain disorders. This article addresses the current controversy of the efficacy and safety of the coxibs and NSAIDs in general based on recent clinical trials and review by healthcare consortiums. This article also provides guidelines regarding the use of NSAIDs, including the diminishing armamentarium of the coxibs, and the alternative therapeutic options available to the physiatrist in managing musculoskeletal pain disorders.

Celecoxib compared with lansoprazole and naproxen to prevent gastrointestinal ulcer complications

PURPOSE

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors cause significantly fewer peptic ulcers than conventional nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients at low risk or high risk for peptic ulcers. On the other hand, proton pump inhibitor co-therapy has also been shown to be effective in preventing relapse of peptic ulcers in high-risk patients using nonselective NSAIDs. We compared the efficacy of a selective COX-2 inhibitor with that of proton pump inhibitor co-therapy in the reduction in the incidence of ulcer relapse in patients with a history of NSAID-related peptic ulcers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this study, we recruited 224 patients who developed ulcer complications after NSAID use. We excluded patients who required concomitant aspirin treatment and who had renal impairment. After healing of ulcers and eradication of Helicobacter pylori, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with celecoxib 200 mg daily (n = 120) or naproxen 750 mg daily and lansoprazole 30 mg daily (n = 122) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was recurrent ulcer complications.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 24 weeks, 4 (3.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0%-7.3%) patients in the celecoxib group, compared with 7 patients (6.3%, 95% CI 1.6%-11.1%) in the lansoprazole group, developed recurrent ulcer complications (absolute difference -2.6%; 95% CI for the difference -9.1%-3.7%). Celecoxib was statistically non-inferior to lansoprazole co-therapy in the prevention of recurrent ulcer complications. Concomitant illness (hazard ratio 4.72, 95% CI 1.24-18.18) and age 65 years or more (hazard ratio 18.52, 95% CI 2.26-142.86) were independent risk factors for ulcer recurrences. Significantly more patients receiving celecoxib (15.0%, 95% CI 9.7-22.5) developed dyspepsia than patients receiving lansoprazole (5.7%, 95% CI 2.8-11.4. P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib was as effective as lansoprazole co-therapy in the prevention of recurrences of ulcer complications in subjects with a history of NSAID-related complicated peptic ulcers. However, celecoxib, similar to lansoprazole co-therapy, was still associated with a significant proportion of ulcer complication recurrences. In addition, more patients receiving celecoxib developed dyspepsia than patients receiving lansoprazole and naproxen.

The post-operative analgesic efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib compared with placebo and naproxen after total knee or hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor in development for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind multicentre study enrolled 180 patients (aged 18-80 years) with moderate-to-severe pain (>or=2 on a 4-point categorical scale) within 48 h of unilateral total knee or total hip arthroplasty. Patients were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (n = 60), placebo (n = 60) or naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n = 60). The study consisted of a 12-h single-dose phase followed by a multiple-dose phase (up to 96 h or until discontinuation). The primary efficacy measure was the summed (time-weighted) pain intensity difference over 0-8 h after the first dose (SPID-8).

RESULTS

Lumiracoxib and naproxen were comparable and both treatments were superior to placebo for the primary efficacy measure, SPID-8. Both treatments were generally similar and also superior to placebo for the secondary efficacy measures during both the single- and multiple-dose phases for up to 96 h. Both active treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Lumiracoxib is an effective alternative to traditional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of post-operative pain.

The unexpected side effects of new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Conventional nonselective NSAIDs are classically associated with a risk of gastrointestinal disorders. These drugs have a broad range of relative selectivity towards the COX family, mainly towards two isoforms of these enzymes: COX-1 and -2. As examples, ketorolac, flurbiprofen, ketoprofen and indomethacin have increased COX-1 selectivity when compared with naproxen and ibuprofen.

Methodology of therapeutic trials: lessons from the late evidence of the cardiovascular toxicity of some coxibs

The removal of rofecoxib after several years on the market has caused deep concern among patients, physicians, researchers, editors, and regulatory agencies. Similar situations have occurred in the recent past. They illustrate the serious limitations of preregistration trials. Approved drugs should be subjected to close postmarketing surveillance. A number of methodological issues regarding the evaluation of drug safety are discussed in this article. The advantages and drawbacks of observational studies and randomized trials are reviewed. Emphasis is put on the usefulness of independent steering committees for therapeutic trials and on the value of cumulative meta-analyses.

Meloxicam: a reappraisal of pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety

The discovery of two distinct isoenzymes of COX has led to the development and clinical introduction of COX-2 inhibitors with increased selectivity onto the market. Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) of the oxicam class, and is a preferential inhibitor of COX-2, demonstrating effectiveness with anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic activity. Meloxicam is therapeutically utilised in the management of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Trials have examined the risk of gastrointestinal ulceration of meloxicam when compared with traditional non-specific COX-inhibiting NSAIDs with mixed results; meloxicam seems to have a greater gastrointestinal risk than the highly specific COX-2 NSAIDs. Meloxicam has a plasma half-life of approximately 20 h and is convenient for once daily administration. Neither moderate renal nor hepatic insufficiency significantly alters the pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in short-term studies. Furthermore, dose adjustment is not required in the elderly. Recent drug-drug interaction studies have demonstrated that meloxicam interacts with some medications, including cholestyramine, lithium and some inhibitors of cytochrome P450 -2C9 and -3A4. Consequently, increased clinical vigilance should be maintained when coprescribing some medications with meloxicam. Concentration-dependent therapeutic and toxicological effects have yet to be extensively elucidated for meloxicam. Long-term safety in various organ systems, especially in the heart and vascular system and with concomitant drug administration, remains to be proven. The pharmacokinetics of meloxicam enables once daily application, which increases compliance compared with some shorter acting NSAIDs; however, long-term clinical data clearly demonstrating safety and efficacy advantages are lacking.

Bleeding complications in patients on celecoxib and warfarin1

PURPOSE

Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nNSAIDs) used in combination with warfarin are associated with an approximately 3-fold increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) compared with warfarin alone. Celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2), is associated with less gastric mucosal injury and platelet dysregulation than nNSAIDs. We compared rates of bleeding complications in patients taking celecoxib and warfarin with those taking warfarin alone.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using data from our Protime Clinic and pharmacy databases from January 2001 to April 2004. We identified 123 patients who took celecoxib and warfarin concurrently (overlap group). We compared rates of bleeding complications in this group with 1022 control patients who were taking warfarin alone. Bleeding complications were defined as major if they resulted in hospitalization, blood transfusion or death.

RESULTS

During approximately 1063 months of exposure to both celecoxib and warfarin, 10 bleeding complications were identified, only one of which was considered major. No patients had UGIB. In the control group, 116 bleeding complications were identified over approximately 16 520 months of exposure to warfarin alone, with 101 minor and 15 major events, including six episodes of UGIB. The relative risk of all bleeding complications was 1.34 (95% CI: 0.70-2.57) in the overlap vs. control groups, and for major bleeds was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.14-7.85).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a mild but non-significant increase in bleeding complications in patients taking celecoxib and warfarin compared with those taking warfarin alone.

Practical approaches to minimizing gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety concerns with COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are highly effective in treating the pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, but it is well recognized that these agents are associated with substantial gastrointestinal toxicity. Treatment guidelines suggest that patients with one or more risk factors for NSAID associated ulcers should be prescribed preventive treatment. However, well over 80% of such patients may not receive an appropriate therapeutic intervention. Multiple strategies are available to reduce the risk for NSAID associated gastrointestinal complications. First, risk may be reduced by using non-NSAID analgesics. Second, use of the minimum effective dose of the NSAID may reduce risk. Third, co-therapy with a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol may be desirable in at-risk patients. Use of cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors may also reduce the risk for gastrointestinal events, although this benefit is eliminated in patients who receive aspirin, and cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors may increase cardiovascular adverse events. The optimal management of NSAID related gastrointestinal complications must be based on the individual patient's risk factors for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular disease, as well as on the efficacy and tolerability of both the NSAID and accompanying gastroprotective agent.

Cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs: achieving a balance

Conventional 'nonselective' nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for the treatment of pain and inflammation; however, the potential gastrointestinal risks associated with their use can be a cause for concern. In response to the adverse effects that can accompany nonselective NSAID use, selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors were developed to target the COX-2 isoenzyme, thus providing anti-inflammatory and analgesic benefits while theoretically sparing the gastroprotective activity of the COX-1 isoenzyme. Data from large-scale clinical trials have confirmed that the COX-2 inhibitors are associated with substantial reductions in gastrointestinal risk in the majority of patients who do not receive aspirin. However, some or all of the gastrointestinal benefit of COX-2 inhibitors may be lost in patients who receive low, cardioprotective doses of aspirin, and recent evidence suggests that some of these agents, at some doses, may be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular adverse events compared with no therapy. The risks and benefits of conventional NSAIDs and of COX-2 inhibitors must be weighed carefully; in clinical practice many patients who might benefit from NSAID or COX-2 therapy are likely to be elderly and at relatively high risk for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events. These patients are also more likely to be taking low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis and over-the-counter NSAIDs for pain. Identifying therapies that provide relief from arthritis related symptoms, confer optimum cardioprotection, and preserve the gastrointestinal mucosa is complex. Factors to consider include the interference of certain NSAIDs with the antiplatelet effects of aspirin, differences in the adverse gastrointestinal event rates among nonselective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors, emerging data regarding the relative risks for cardiovascular events associated with these drugs, and the feasibility and cost of co-therapy with proton pump inhibitors.

Introduction — The coxib controversies

Much concern has arisen in the past year concerning the occurrence of serious cardiovascular adverse reactions from rofecoxib, celecoxib and some other members of the coxib group of NSAIDs. Factors underlying the sudden appearance of these events have been proposed to include the use of high doses of the drugs, undue reliance on their safety profile from controlled clinical trails and potent marketing leading to exposure of a large population who would inevitably present risks of cardiovascular adverse events. Suggestions are presented for future uses of the coxibs and approaches for their more cautious use and marketing. The use of the term "COX-2 inhibitor" to describe the coxibs is unhelpful and should be avoided since all NSAIDs have some degree of COX-2 inhibitory effect, though they may vary in their selectivity. Coxibs should be set aside in a group of their own within the broader category of the NSAIDs in view of both their cardiovascular risk and unique pharmacology.

A double-blind prospective comparison of rofecoxib vs ketorolac in reducing postoperative pain after arthroscopic knee surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of premedication with rofecoxib vs intravenous (IV) ketorolac in reducing postoperative pain after arthroscopic knee surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.

SETTING

This study was set at a university hospital.

SUBJECTS

The subjects include 54 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical statuses I, II, and III undergoing knee arthroscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Group 1 received 50 mg oral rofecoxib preoperatively with IV placebo injection, which was administered 20 minutes before the end of the operation. Group 2 received a preoperative placebo and 30 mg IV ketorolac 20 minutes before the end of surgery.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients reporting pain in the postoperative anesthesia care unit, 6 hours and 24 hours after discharge. Additional end points included the use of 5:325 mg oxycodone-acetaminophen (O/A) tablets, pain scores, patient's satisfaction survey, and comparison of side effects. Data were analyzed using independent samples t tests for continuous variables or chi2 tests for categorical variables. P < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics, intraoperative medication use, and duration of surgery. There was no difference either in pain scores or O/A use in the postoperative anesthesia care unit. At 24 hours after discharge, significantly more patients in the ketorolac group (91%) reported pain than the rofecoxib group (63%) (P = .02). Sixty-one percent of patients in the ketorolac group used O/A during the first 24 hours vs 38% in the rofecoxib group. The difference, however, was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative rofecoxib is as effective as ketorolac for the treatment of pain after knee arthroscopy. Higher frequency of pain reporting at 24 hours by patients in ketorolac group is explained by the longer analgesic effect of rofecoxib. Future studies should directly compare gastrointestinal injury of these drugs, as well as cost-effectiveness of rofecoxib vs ketorolac.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: confusion, controversy and dental implications

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used in the treatment of pain, including pain of dental origin, for many years. Even though they are effective in relieving symptoms, they are not without adverse events, most notably upper gastrointestinal toxicity. To prevent this side effect, the pharmaceutical industry developed NSAIDs that selectively inhibit the cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) isoenzyme, which is inducible and expressed at sites of inflammation, while sparing the COX-1 isoenzyme, which is associated with gastric protection. On September 30, 2004, the company that produced rofecoxib (Vioxx), a COX-2 inhibitor, voluntarily withdrew this product from the market based on the discovery of its association with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events reported in an ongoing large clinical trial. This unexpected event caused the medical community to review existing literature regarding this and related medications and also led to the emergence of novel research to improve understanding of the potential mechanisms for this serious side effect. However, instead of clarifying the situation, reports created confusion and controversy regarding the safety of all types of NSAIDs. The major concern is an increase in adverse cardiovascular events with the use of individual drugs as well as the potential for a class effect. In this article, we review recent events and findings and discuss the implications for dentistry.

The murky waters of the coxibs: a review of the current state of play

Since their development and licensing no class of drug has received as much attention both in the scientific and lay press as the cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors. These compounds, also known as coxibs, were developed as a safer alternative to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) due to their reduced propensity to cause gastrointestinal (GI) irritation. However, an unforeseen complication was identified of increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. This observation threw into question the true 'safety' of the class and their subsequent role, if any, in patient management. The amount of information and misinformation regarding the coxibs is vast and as this field is in a state of flux much more will be forthcoming. This article will attempt to review the data regarding coxibs and make some recommendations regarding their ongoing use.

COX-2 controversy: where are we and where do we go from here?

Much has been written in the last few months on the association between the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective inhibitors and cardiovascular events. We summarize the randomized controlled studies of different COX-2 inhibitors that led to rofecoxib withdrawal, provide evidence on the differences between various selective coxibs and summarize recommendations from the FDA and the American College of Rheumatology on use of COX-2 inhibitors. We give suggestions on the use of coxibs and briefly mention a general approach to the future of coxibs.

COX-2 inhibitors and arterial hypertension: an analysis of spontaneous case reports in the Pharmacovigilance database

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the main characteristics of case reports of arterial hypertension (AH) related to COX-2 inhibitor (coxib) use in real-life practice.

METHODS

This study was based on spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) submitted to the French Pharmacovigilance system. Associations between AH and the different groups of those using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs: rofecoxib, celecoxib and non-selective NSAIDs) were compared using calculation of the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In France, between 1 April 2000 and 30 November 2003, 34 AH cases related to coxibs were reported. Case reports include predominantly patients older than 65 years, with a previous story of essential AH. Most AH (60%) occurred during the first 15 days of treatment. The AH was reported significantly more frequently for rofecoxib than celecoxib. The OR for development of AH with rofecoxib versus celecoxib was 3.3 (1.6-6.9). The AH was also reported more frequently with coxib (2.8%) than with non-selective NSAID (0.5%) use, OR = 5.9 (3.8-9.0).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that coxibs are associated with a risk of AH in real-life practice. More spontaneous reports of AH to the French Pharmacovigilance system concern rofecoxib than celecoxib (and coxibs than non-selective NSAIDs). This ADR is of special epidemiological importance due to both the risks of AH and the large use of coxibs.

Clinical pharmacology of etoricoxib

Etoricoxib is a highly selective COX-2 inhibitor (coxib) approved in Europe for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis and acute gouty arthritis. Etoricoxib is an effective analgesic drug that has shown some improved efficacy versus traditional NSAIDs and it is the only coxib approved for the treatment of acute gouty arthritis. Moreover, recent studies evidence its efficacy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. In the Etoricoxib Diclofenac Gastrointestinal Evaluation study performed in patients with OA, etoricoxib significantly reduced the rate of discontinuation by 50% due to gastrointestinal adverse events versus diclofenac. Comparable rates of thrombotic cardiovascular events were detected. Rates of discontinuation due to hypertension-related adverse effects were higher on etoricoxib than diclofenac. Similarly to other selective COX-2 inhibitors, etoricoxib is contraindicated in patients with ischaemic heart disease or stroke and it should be used with caution in patients with risk factors for heart disease. The European Medicines Agency has contraindicated the use of etoricoxib in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Selective COX-2 inhibitors remain an appropriate choice in patients at low cardiovascular risk, but with increased risk of gastrointestinal complications.

Update on cyclooxygenase inhibitors: has a third COX isoform entered the fray?

It has been more than 30 years since Sir John Vane first reported that the pharmacological actions of aspirin-like drugs could be explained by their ability to inhibit cyclooxygenase (COX). Since then, a second isoform of COX, named COX-2, has been discovered and highly selective inhibitors of this isoform have been marketed. Most recently, a splice variant of COX-1 mRNA, retaining intron 1, and given the names COX-3, COX-1b or COX-1v, has been described. Non-selective NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and naproxen, which inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, have proven highly effective and safe in the short-term management of acute pain. Highly selective COX-2 inhibitors including celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib, lumiracoxib, and etoricoxib were developed with the hope of significantly reducing the serious gastrointestinal toxicities associated with chronic high-dose NSAID use. While long-term studies demonstrated that rofecoxib and lumiracoxib reduced the incidence of GI perforations, ulcerations and bleeds by approximately 60% compared to non-selective NSAIDs, recent reports also demonstrated that the chronic use of rofecoxib and celecoxib in arthritis and colorectal polyp patients, and the short-term use of parecoxib and valdecoxib in patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass surgery, resulted in a significant increase in serious cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction and stroke compared to naproxen or placebo. COX-3 mRNA has been isolated in many tissues including canine and human cerebral cortex, human aorta, and rodent cerebral endothelium, heart, kidney and neuronal tissues. In transfected insect cells, canine COX-3 protein is expressed and was selectively inhibited by acetaminophen. However, in humans and rodents an acetaminophen sensitive COX-3 protein is not expressed because the retention of intron-1 adds 94 and 98 nucleotides to the COX-3 mRNA structure respectively. Since the genetic code is a triplicate code (3 nucleotides to form one amino acid), the retention of the intron in both species results in a frame shift in the RNA message and the production of a truncated protein with a completely different amino acid sequence than COX-1 or COX-2 lacking acetaminophen sensitivity. Advances made through a combination of basic molecular biological and pharmacological techniques, and well designed randomized controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that the apparent gastrointestinal advantage of selective COX-2 inhibitors appears to be outweighed by their potential for cardiovascular toxicity and that acetaminophen's analgesic and antipyretic effects do not involve the inhibition of the COX-1 splice variant protein, putative COX-3.

Factors that Influence Prescribers in their Selection and use of COX-2 Selective Inhibitors as Opposed to Non-selective NSAIDs*

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that influence prescribers in their selection and use of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors as opposed to non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and report the tendency to co-prescribe gastro-protection with these agents.

SETTING

All 579 general practitioners (GPs) in one geographical area, Lothian, Scotland, UK.

METHOD

Postal questionnaires; simple and factorial designed case series questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Categorisation of responses to clinical and non-clinical factors into highly, partially or not influential. The quantitative influence of the most prominent clinical factors on prescribing choice and the tendency of co-prescription of gastro-protection with these agents.

RESULTS

Responses from 229 (40%) GPs suggested the following as most influential: Drug Evaluation Panel recommendations, Lothian Joint Formulary, local practice formulary, history of peptic ulcer disease (PUD), history of gastro-intestinal (GI) adverse effects with NSAIDs and advanced age. Advice from other physicians, patient demand, history of alcohol gastritis, history of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, history of functional dyspepsia, concomitant use of low dose aspirin and concomitant use of gastro-protective agents were regarded to have moderate influence. Information directly from pharmaceutical industry and regular smoking were regarded as having weak influence. An 18% response to the factorial designed questionnaire using the most prominent clinical factors suggested that history of either GI adverse effects associated with non-selective NSAIDs or PUD resulted in more pronounced increase in the frequency (15%) of decision to prescribe COX-2 selective inhibitors than advanced age (10%). Concomitant use of low dose aspirin had little effect on GPs' decisions. The mean percentage of GPs choosing to co-prescribe gastro-protection was higher with non-selective NSAIDs (64%) than with COX-2 selective inhibitors (22%).

CONCLUSION

Local authoritative guidance and history of GI complications highly influenced the GPs in their use and choice of either COX-2 selective inhibitors or non-selective NSAIDs. As expected the use of gastro-protection was more frequently chosen with non-selective NSAIDs than COX-2 selective inhibitors.