Effect of indomethacin on blood pressure in elderly people with essential hypertension well controlled on amlodipine or enalapril

Development and Characterization of Different Dosage Forms of Nifedipine/Indomethacin Fixed-Dose Combinations

Studies have shown that 40 individuals out of 100,000 are diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) yearly, with a total of 1.3 million in the United States. Furthermore, the impact of RA in some cases can extend to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), as the studies showed that 84% of RA patients are at risk of developing hypertension. This study aims to design and develop different dosage forms (capsule-in-capsule and three-dimensional (3D) printed tablet) of nifedipine/indomethacin fixed-dose combination (FDC). The hot-melt extrusion (HME) was utilized alone and with fused deposition modeling (FDM) techniques The developed dosage forms were intended to provide delayed-extended and immediate release profiles for indomethacin and nifedipine, respectively. FDC dosage forms were successfully developed and characterized. Nifedipine formulations showed significant improvement in release profiles, having 94% of the drug release at 30 minutes compared with pure nifedipine, which had a percent release of 2%. Furthermore, the release of indomethacin was successfully delayed at a pH of 1.2 and extended at a pH of 6.8. Differential scanning calorimetry results showed endothermic crystalline peaks at 165 °C and 176 °C for indomethacin and nifedipine, respectively. Moreover, the thermal analysis of all formulations showed the absence of the endothermic peaks indicating complete solubilization of indomethacin and nifedipine in the polymeric carriers. All formulations had post-processing drug content in the range of 95% to 98%. Moreover, results from the stability study showed that all formulations were able to remain chemically and physically stable with no signs of recrystallization or degradation. The designed FDC dosage forms could improve the quality of life by enhancing patient compliance and preventing the need for polypharmacy.

Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants for hypertension

BACKGROUND

The main complications of elevated systemic blood pressure (BP), coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, and peripheral vascular disease, are related to thrombosis rather than haemorrhage. Therefore, it is important to investigate if antithrombotic therapy may be useful in preventing thrombosis-related complications in patients with elevated BP.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the role of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with elevated BP, including elevations in systolic or diastolic BP alone or together. To assess the effects of antiplatelet agents on total deaths or major thrombotic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment. To assess the effects of oral anticoagulants on total deaths or major thromboembolic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 2021: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), and Ovid Embase (from 1974). The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for ongoing trials.  SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in patients with elevated BP were included if they were ≥ 3 months in duration and compared antithrombotic therapy with control or other active treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data for inclusion criteria, our prespecified outcomes, and sources of bias. They assessed the risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants by calculating odds ratios (OR), accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals (CI). They assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria.  MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (61,015 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four trials were primary prevention (41,695 patients; HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT), and two secondary prevention (19,320 patients, CAPRIE and Huynh). Four trials (HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT) were placebo-controlled and two studies (CAPRIE and Huynh) included active comparators. Four studies compared acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus placebo and found no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference for cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA reduced the risk of all non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; 1 study (missing data in 3 studies), 2540 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA increased the risk of major bleeding events (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.32; 2 studies, 21,330 participants; high-certainty evidence). One study (CAPRIE; ASA versus clopidogrel) included patients diagnosed with hypertension (mean age 62.5 years, 72% males, 95% Caucasians, mean follow-up: 1.91 years). It showed no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). ASA probably reduced the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increased the risk of major bleeding events when compared to ASA (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one study (Huynh; ASA verus warfarin) patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were included (mean age 68 years, 79.8% males, mean follow-up: 1.1 year). There was no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.12; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events, and all cardiovascular events were not available. There was no evidence of a difference for major bleeding events (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.60; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that antiplatelet therapy modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for primary prevention. ASA reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and increased the risk of major bleeding events.  Antiplatelet therapy with ASA probably reduces the risk of non-fatal and all cardiovascular events when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increases the risk of major bleeding events compared to ASA in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention.  There is no evidence that warfarin modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention.  The benefits and harms of the newer drugs glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for patients with high BP have not been studied in clinical trials. Further RCTs of antithrombotic therapy including newer agents and complete documentation of all benefits and harms are required in patients with elevated BP.

The Effects of Pain and Analgesic Medications on Blood Pressure

Purpose of Review

To review the blood pressure (BP) effects of pain and analgesic medications and to help interpret BP changes in people suffering from acute or chronic pain.

Recent Findings

Acute pain evokes a stress response which prompts a transient BP increase. Chronic pain is associated with impaired regulation of cardiovascular and analgesia systems, which may predispose to persistent BP elevation. Also analgesics may have BP effects, which vary according to the drug class considered. Data on paracetamol are controversial, while multiple studies indicate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may increase BP, with celecoxib showing a lesser impact. Hypotension has been reported with opioid drugs. Among adjuvants, tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors could be pro-hypertensive due to potentiation of adrenergic transmission.

Summary

Pain and analgesics may induce a clinically significant BP destabilization. The implications on hypertension incidence and BP control remain unclear and should be explored in future studies.

Graphical abstract

Alteration of Relative Rates of Biodegradation and Regeneration of Cervical Spine Cartilage through the Restoration of Arterial Blood Flow Access to Rhomboid Fossa: A Hypothesis

We found the logical way to prove the existence of the mechanism that maintains the rates of biodegradation and regeneration of cervical spine cartilage. We demonstrate, that after we restore access to arterial blood flow through cervical vertebral arteries to rhomboid fossa it causes the prevalence of regeneration over biodegradation. This is in the frames of consideration of the human body as a dissipative structure. Then the recovery of the body should be considered as a reduction of the relative rates of decay below the regeneration ones. Then the recovery of cervical spine cartilage through redirecting of inner dissipative flow depends on the information about oxygen availability that is provided from oxygen detectors in the rhomboid fossa to the cerebellum. Our proposed approach explains already collected data, which satisfies all the scientific requirements. This allows us to draw conclusions that permit reconsidering the way of dealing with multiple chronic diseases.

Fixed-dose combination amlodipine-celecoxib for treatment of hypertension and osteoarthritis pain: an up-to-date evaluation

Introduction: A fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and celecoxib, branded in the USA as Consensi®, was recently granted a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication for treatment of comorbid hypertension and osteoarthritis.Areas covered: A PubMed and Medline search was conducted for clinical trials published through December 2020 in the English language using keywords amlodipine, celecoxib, combination product, consensi, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and pill burden. Although no clinical trials have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, results from two phase 3 clinical trials reported to ClinicalTrials.gov suggest that amlodipine-celecoxib has similar short-term efficacy compared with amlodipine alone in reducing blood pressure and a comparable adverse event profile to the individual components administered alone.Expert opinion: Despite the pill burden reduction and a body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of the individual drugs, the role of amlodipine-celecoxib in the management of patients with hypertension-osteoarthritis remains in question. This is in no small part because the combination product is very costly relative to the generic components, provides limited flexibility for dose-adjustment, and lacks long-term data on safety and efficacy.

The case for cautious consumption: NSAIDs in chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Strong epidemiological and pathologic evidence associates NSAIDs with kidney disease, both acute and chronic. Hence, the usage of NSAIDs has decreased in patients with, or at risk for, chronic kidney disease (CKD). Coupled with this has been a rise in use of opioids and other non-NSAID alternatives, which do come with significant, and underrecognized, risk of nonrenal adverse events. We review the literature to understand if this shift is appropriate or deleterious.

RECENT FINDINGS

NSAIDs do have a low but tangible risk in causing acute kidney injury, electrolyte imbalances, and increasing blood pressure. However, their role in causing progressive kidney disease is due to long-term usage in high cumulative dosages, and the use of NSAIDs in combination with other agents. Alternatives such as opioids, tramadol, gabapentin and baclofen have weak evidence to support their use and strong evidence to show their harm in patients with CKD.

SUMMARY

Tradeoffs are inherent in using active pharmaceuticals, and NSAIDs are no exception. Balancing potential benefits with possible adverse effects around pain management should be a part of every conversation for patients with kidney disease.

Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Evaluation, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as above-goal elevated blood pressure (BP) in a patient despite the concurrent use of 3 antihypertensive drug classes, commonly including a long-acting calcium channel blocker, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a diuretic. The antihypertensive drugs should be administered at maximum or maximally tolerated daily doses. RH also includes patients whose BP achieves target values on ≥4 antihypertensive medications. The diagnosis of RH requires assurance of antihypertensive medication adherence and exclusion of the "white-coat effect" (office BP above goal but out-of-office BP at or below target). The importance of RH is underscored by the associated risk of adverse outcomes compared with non-RH. This article is an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the detection, evaluation, and management of RH. Once antihypertensive medication adherence is confirmed and out-of-office BP recordings exclude a white-coat effect, evaluation includes identification of contributing lifestyle issues, detection of drugs interfering with antihypertensive medication effectiveness, screening for secondary hypertension, and assessment of target organ damage. Management of RH includes maximization of lifestyle interventions, use of long-acting thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone or indapamide), addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenone), and, if BP remains elevated, stepwise addition of antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower BP. If BP remains uncontrolled, referral to a hypertension specialist is advised.

Fixed-Dose Combination Amlodipine/Celecoxib (Consensi) for Hypertension and Osteoarthritis

The US Food and Drug Administration recently granted an approved indication for the first fixed-dose combination antihypertensive (amlodipine) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib) for treatment of comorbid hypertension and osteoarthritis. This review summarizes available data on this combination product, to be marketed as Consensi (Kitov Pharmaceuticals, Ltd, Tel Aviv, Israel), and discusses its potential place in therapy.

Amlodipine and celecoxib for treatment of hypertension and osteoarthritis pain

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis constitutes one of the leading causes of pain and disability worldwide with a significant impact on health-care costs. Patients with osteoarthritis are often affected by a number of cardiovascular comorbidities, including hypertension, which is present in about 40% of cases. Just recently, a single tablet combination of amlodipine besylate, a calcium channel blocker, and celecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indicated for patients for whom treatment with amlodipine for hypertension and celecoxib for osteoarthritis are appropriate, has been recently approved. Areas covered: We reviewed data from clinical studies that investigated safety and efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and celecoxib in hypertensive patients with osteoarthritis published before 31 August 2018. The literature search was conducted using research Methodology Filters. Expert commentary: The advantages of this single formulation over sequential administration include increased compliance, possibly reduced cost, and less likelihood of dosage-related issues. Moreover, this single tablet formulation combines the anti-inflammatory activity of the celecoxib with the systemic vasodilatation induced by the amlodipine. It is a promising treatment for patients with osteoarthritis and hypertension. Nevertheless, celecoxib may cause a variable degree of blood pressure increase and only a small clinical trial has been conducted before approval to assess interactions related to blood pressure effect between these two molecules.

Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial

Aims

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen.

Methods and results

In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively).

Conclusions

In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension.

ClinicalTrials

gov number NCT00346216.

Effect of ibuprofen vs acetaminophen on postpartum hypertension in preeclampsia with severe features: a double-masked, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use has been shown to increase blood pressure in nonpregnant adults. Because of this, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists suggests avoiding their use in women with postpartum hypertension; however, evidence to support this recommendation is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to test the hypothesis that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen, adversely affect postpartum blood pressure control in women with preeclampsia with severe features.

STUDY DESIGN

At delivery, we randomized women with preeclampsia with severe features to receive around-the-clock oral dosing with either 600 mg of ibuprofen or 650 mg of acetaminophen every 6 hours. Dosing began within 6 hours after delivery and continued until discharge, with opioid analgesics available as needed for breakthrough pain. Study drugs were encapsulated in identical capsules such that patients, nurses, and physicians were masked to study allocation. Exclusion criteria were serum aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase >200 mg/dL, serum creatinine >1.0 mg/dL, infectious hepatitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, age <18 years, or current incarceration. Our primary outcome was the duration of severe-range hypertension, defined as the time (in hours) from delivery to the last blood pressure ≥160/110 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes were time from delivery to last blood pressure ≥150/100 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure, need for antihypertensive medication at discharge, prolongation of hospital stay for blood pressure control, postpartum use of short-acting antihypertensives for acute blood pressure control, and opioid use for breakthrough pain. We analyzed all outcome data according to intention-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

We assessed 154 women for eligibility, of whom 100 met entry criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized to receive postpartum ibuprofen or acetaminophen for first-line pain control. Seven patients crossed over or did not receive their allocated study drug, and 93 completed the study protocol in their assigned groups. We found no differences in baseline characteristics between groups, including mode of delivery, body mass index, parity, race, chronic hypertension, and maximum blood pressure prior to delivery. We did not find a difference in the duration of severe-range hypertension in the ibuprofen vs acetaminophen groups (35.3 vs 38.0 hours, P = .30). There were no differences between groups in the secondary outcome measures of time from delivery to last blood pressure ≥150/100 mm Hg, postpartum mean arterial pressure, maximum postpartum systolic or diastolic blood pressures, any postpartum blood pressure ≥160/110 mm Hg, short-acting antihypertensive use for acute blood pressure control, length of postpartum stay, need to extend postpartum stay for blood pressure control, antihypertensive use at discharge, or opioid use for inadequate pain control. In a subgroup analysis of patients who experienced severe-range hypertension, the mean time to blood pressure control in the acetaminophen group was 68.4 hours and ibuprofen group was 56.7 hours (P = .26). At 6 weeks postpartum, there were no differences between groups in the rates of obstetric triage visits, hospital readmissions, continued opioid use, or continued antihypertensive use.

CONCLUSION

The first-line use of ibuprofen rather than acetaminophen for postpartum pain did not lengthen the duration of severe-range hypertension in women with preeclampsia with severe features.

Cardiovascular Risk of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: An Under-Recognized Public Health Issue

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs with analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic activity. Their effect is achieved by the reduction in synthesis of prostanoids. Inhibition of prostanoids is responsible for a substantial risk of adverse effects. The risk of side effects affecting the gastrointestinal tract and kidneys has long been known. The possibilities of blood pressure elevation and the development of congestive heart failure are also widely recognized. Increased incidence of acute myocardial infarction in clinical trials with rofecoxib drew attention to the potential cardiotoxicity of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and similarly, concerns have been raised regarding the cardiovascular safety of non-selective NSAIDs. The safety of NSAIDs with regards to cardiovascular events has been studied in recent years in a large number of retrospective and prospective clinical studies and meta-analyses. The results indicate that cardiotoxicity is a class effect, but the magnitude of the risk is widely variable between individual NSAID drugs. This article aims to summarize the available data on the risk of adverse cardiovascular events with NSAIDs, the clinical impact of these events and possible underlying mechanisms.

[A choice of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with regard to gastrointestinal and cardiovascular' risks]

NSAIDs are effective drugs among analgesics and antiinflammatory drugs used widely in clinical practice. It is important to emphasize that the range of users of NSAIDs in population are patients with chronic disorders of the joints and spine. However,when prescribing NSAIDs one should consider risk factors of side-effects not only from the gastrointestinal tract, but cardiovascular events as well. The potential negative risks of using NSAIDs promote an active research on creation of ne...y medicinal substances which are able to minimize NSAID-induced complications. The use of oxide-nitrogen-associated NSAIDs, in particular amtolmetin guacil1in patients with risk factors of side-effects from the gastrointestinal tract and cardiovascular system seems to be promising.It is noted that amtolmetin guacil has balanced analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects and is well tolerated.

[Specifics of the use of NSAIDs in senior age]

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have a strong analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects and are widely used in clinical practice. Patients with chronic disorders of the joints, in particular the spine, are main consumers of NSAIDs. However, risk factors for side-effects should be taken into consideration in the treatment with NSAIDs, especially in patients of old age. The careful control of treatment taking into account the risk of developing gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events is needed.

[Clinical relevance of drug interactions between nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antihypertensives]

Objetivo

Establecer la relevancia clínica de las interacciones medicamentosas reportadas entre antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINE) y antihipertensivos basándose en la gravedad y la probabilidad de ocurrencia de la interacción.

Diseño

Revisión sistemática.

Fuentes de datos

Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed/Medline utilizando los términos Mesh: NSAIDs, Antihypertensive drugs y Drug interactions.

Extracción de datos

Se incluyeron publicaciones entre 2002 y 2012 de estudios en humanos, en español e inglés y con acceso a texto completo. Fueron incluidos los artículos que la búsqueda arrojó y algunas de las referencias usadas en dichos trabajos. Fueron excluidos los trabajos con métodos in vitro, con efectos sobre la hipertensión ocular y aquellos que no consideraran la interacción AINE-antihipertensivos. Para la selección de los trabajos incluidos participaron 3 revisores independientes. Se usó una herramienta especialmente diseñada para la extracción de datos y análisis de la relevancia clínica de la interacción.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 19 artículos de los 50 encontrados. Allí se identificaron 21 interacciones de mecanismo farmacodinámico, clasificadas por su relevancia clínica en nivel 2 (riesgo alto; 76,2%) y nivel 3 (riesgo medio; 23,8%). Adicionalmente se encontró evidencia de 16 combinaciones que no presentaron interacción.

Conclusiones

Algunos AINE pueden disminuir la efectividad del tratamiento antihipertensivo cuando se utilizan simultáneamente con antihipertensivos, en especial con inhibidores de la enzima conversora de angiotensina, diuréticos, bloqueadores beta y antagonistas de los receptores de angiotensina. No se encontró evidencia de la modificación del efecto de los antagonistas de los canales de calcio, especialmente dihidropiridínicos, por el uso simultáneo con AINE.

A systematic review of the effect of paracetamol on blood pressure in hypertensive and non-hypertensive subjects

AIM

To review current evidence on the effect of paracetamol on blood pressure (BP), the quality of the previous studies and the validity of the results, and to summarize these findings.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane library and EMBASE for publications between the years 1963 and 2012.

RESULTS

We identified three case reports, seven prospective observational trials, six randomized controlled trials, one commentary and two reviews. Some, but not all, of the observational studies, which included over 147 000 patients, showed an increased risk of hypertension with paracetamol use. The randomized studies were generally small and the results were inconsistent. Three studies, which included 104 patients, showed an increase of systolic BP by ~4 mmHg, two studies, which included 27 patients, reported no change in BP and one study, which included 21 patients, reported a fall in BP although no placebo arm was included for comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall effect of paracetamol on BP is unclear. Given that paracetamol is often suggested as a safer alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), it would seem that further prospective evidence is now needed to address the effect of paracetamol on BP. This would be best done with larger studies in relevant cohorts using BP measured by ambulatory BP monitoring as the primary endpoint.

Effect of naproxen and acetaminophen on blood pressure lowering by ramipril, valsartan and aliskiren in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used for reducing pain and other symptoms in osteoarthritis (OA). NSAIDs have been associated with an increase in blood pressure (BP) in both normotensive and hypertensive individuals and a blunting effect on various anti-hypertensive medications. Acetaminophen effects on anti-hypertensive treatment, instead, are still a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of naproxen versus acetaminophen on ramipril, valsartan and aliskiren therapy in hypertensive patients with OA in a double-blind, cross-over study, by measuring clinic, ambulatory BP and heart rate (HR).

RESULTS

One hundred seventy four patients were randomly treated with ramipril, valsartan or aliskiren for 8 weeks and 135 patients with normalized BP were randomized to receive naproxen or acetaminophen for 2 weeks. Naproxen significantly increased clinic and ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) values in patients treated with ramipril (p < 0.01) or valsartan (p < 0.05), but did not affect aliskiren effects. Also acetaminophen slightly but significantly affected clinic and ambulatory SBP/DBP in all three groups and, surprisingly, it also produced a slight increase in HR (+3.1, +3.3 and +3.4 b/min day-time HR values, for ramipril, valsartan and aliskiren, respectively; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both naproxen and acetaminophen can affect anti-hypertensive therapy with ramipril, valsartan or aliskiren with a different extent. When acetaminophen is chosen for OA management in subjects with hypertension, patients should be evaluated as carefully as when traditional NSAIDs are given.

Comparative effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on blood pressure in patients with hypertension

Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may disrupt control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients and increase their risk of morbidity, mortality, and the costs of care. The objective of this study was to examine the association between incident use of NSAIDs and blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult hypertensive patients to determine the effects of their first prescription for NSAID on systolic blood pressure and antihypertensive drug intensification. Data were collected from an electronic medical record serving an academic general medicine practice in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Using propensity scores to minimize bias, we matched a cohort of 1,340 users of NSAIDs with 1,340 users of acetaminophen. Propensity score models included covariates likely to affect blood pressure or the use of NSAIDs. The study outcomes were the mean systolic blood pressure measurement after starting NSAIDs and changes in antihypertensive therapy.

Results

Compared to patients using acetaminophen, NSAID users had a 2 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.3). Ibuprofen was associated with a 3 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure compared to naproxen (95% CI, 0.5 to 4.6), and a 5 mmHg increase compared to celecoxib (95% CI, 0.4 to 10). The systolic blood pressure increase was 3 mmHg in a subgroup of patients concomitantly prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers and 6 mmHg among those prescribed a beta-adrenergic blocker. Blood pressure changes in patients prescribed diuretics or multiple antihypertensives were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Compared to acetaminophen, incident use of NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, is associated with a small increase in systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Effects in patients prescribed diuretics or multiple antihypertensives are negligible.

Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Elevated systemic blood pressure results in high intravascular pressure but the main complications, coronary heart disease (CHD), ischaemic strokes and peripheral vascular disease (PVD), are related to thrombosis rather than haemorrhage. Some complications related to elevated blood pressure, heart failure or atrial fibrillation, are themselves associated with stroke and thromboembolism. Therefore it is important to investigate if antithrombotic therapy may be useful in preventing thrombosis-related complications in patients with elevated blood pressure.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the role of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with high blood pressure, including those with elevations in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, isolated elevations of either systolic or diastolic blood pressure, to address the following hypotheses: (i) antiplatelet agents reduce total deaths and/or major thrombotic events when compared to placebo or other active treatment; and (ii) oral anticoagulants reduce total deaths and/or major thromboembolic events when compared to placebo or other active treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, CENTRAL, Hypertension Group specialised register) were searched up to January 2011. The reference lists of papers resulting from the electronic searches and abstracts from national and international cardiovascular meetings were hand-searched to identify missed or unpublished studies. Relevant authors of studies were contacted to obtain further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with elevated blood pressure were included if they were of at least 3 months in duration and compared antithrombotic therapy with control or other active treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently collected and verified by two reviewers. Data from different trials were pooled where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials with a combined total of 44,012 patients met the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) did not reduce stroke or 'all cardiovascular events' compared to placebo in primary prevention patients with elevated blood pressure and no prior cardiovascular disease. In one large trial ASA taken for 5 years reduced myocardial infarction (ARR 0.5%, NNT 200), increased major haemorrhage (ARI 0.7%, NNT 154), and did not reduce all cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality. In one trial there was no significant difference between ASA and clopidogrel for the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular death. In two small trials warfarin alone or in combination with ASA did not reduce stroke or coronary events. The ATC meta-analysis of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in patients with elevated blood pressure reported an absolute reduction in vascular events of 4.1% as compared to placebo. Data on the 10,600 patients with elevated blood pressure from the 29 individual trials included in the ATC meta-analysis was requested but could not be obtained.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antiplatelet therapy with ASA for primary prevention in patients with elevated blood pressure provides a benefit, reduction in myocardial infarction, which is negated by a harm of similar magnitude, increase in major haemorrhage.The benefit of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in patients with elevated blood pressure is many times greater than the harm.Benefit has not been demonstrated for warfarin therapy alone or in combination with aspirin in patients with elevated blood pressure. Ticlopidine, clopidogrel and newer antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel and ticagrelor have not been sufficiently evaluated in patients with high blood pressure. Newer antithrombotic oral drugs such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and endosaban are yet to be tested in patients with high blood pressure.Further trials of antithrombotic therapy including with newer agents and complete documentation of all benefits and harms are required in patients with elevated blood pressure.

The effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on blood pressure in hypertensive patients

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are ubiquitous medications used by a wide range of people from otherwise healthy normotensive patients to hypertensive patients with many significant comorbidities. Through a variety of mechanisms related to prostaglandin inhibition, including sodium retention and vasoconstriction, these agents may increase blood pressure. This leads to potentially detrimental effects. A review of the current literature regarding this topic yielded 2 meta-analyses and 10 randomized controlled trials. There is evidence of small blood pressure increases in normotensive patients taking NSAIDs approximating +1.1 mm Hg. Patients with treated hypertension show variable increases with NSAID treatment, ranging up to +14.3 mm Hg for systolic pressure and +2.3 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure. Most antihypertensive medications seem to have decreased effects with concomitant NSAID administration, with the exception of calcium channel blockers. Given the current literature, it appears that NSAIDs increase blood pressure in patients with controlled-hypertension, but the quantity of this increase is variable. If possible, patients who have hypertension should avoid taking NSAIDs.

Common secondary causes of resistant hypertension and rational for treatment

Resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure despite the use of three antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, in optimal doses. Treatment resistance can be attributed to poor adherence to antihypertensive drugs, excessive salt intake, physician inertia, inappropriate or inadequate medication, and secondary hypertension. Drug-induced hypertension, obstructive sleep apnoea, primary aldosteronism, and chronic kidney disease represent the most common secondary causes of resistant hypertension. Several drugs can induce or exacerbate pre-existing hypertension, with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs being the most common due to their wide use. Obstructive sleep apnoea and primary aldosteronism are frequently encountered in patients with resistant hypertension and require expert management. Hypertension is commonly found in patients with chronic kidney disease and is frequently resistant to treatment, while the management of renovascular hypertension remains controversial. A step-by-step approach of patients with resistant hypertension is proposed at the end of this review paper.

Blood pressure effects of naproxcinod in hypertensive patients

The blood pressure (BP) effects of naproxcinod and naproxen were assessed in an 8-week, double-blind, crossover study in 131 hypertensive patients aged 50 to 74 years. Patients received naproxcinod 750 mg twice daily or naproxen 500 mg twice daily, then the alternate treatment, each for 14 days, with placebo run-in/washout before each active treatment period and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring conducted before and after each active treatment period. Mean change from baseline in average 24-hour systolic BP (SBP) after 2 weeks of treatment numerically favored naproxcinod 750 mg twice daily (least-squares [LS] mean for naproxcinod minus naproxen: -1.6 mm Hg; P=.12). Post hoc analyses showed statistically significant SBP differences favoring naproxcinod for the 8 elapsed hours (LS mean: -4.4 mm Hg; P<.0001) and the 24 hours following morning dosing (LS mean: -2.4 mm Hg; P=.006). Naproxcinod may be a beneficial alternative for patients with osteoarthritis requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Potential pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction between concomitantly administered lisinopril and diclofenac sodium: a call for appropriate management in hypertensive osteoarthritic patients

BACKGROUND

The present study was designed as an open label, multiple-dose, randomized, parallel trial to evaluate the pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction of lisinopril and concomitantly administered diclofenac sodium in non-diabetic and diabetic, mild to moderate hypertensive, osteoarthritic patients.

METHODS

Post-screening and on inclusion, patients were put on a 2-week washout period and then randomly assigned to either only lisinopril 10 mg or combination of lisinopril 10 mg and diclofenac sodium 100 mg treatments for 8-12 weeks in diseased states of hypertension and osteoarthritis with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

The blood pressure (BP) control with lisinopril was reduced by concomitantly administered diclofenac sodium in non-diabetic (SBP: p=0.00002; DBP: p=0.000008) and diabetic (SBP: p=0.002; DBP: p=0.001) patients when compared with the patients receiving lisinopril alone. Insulin sensitivity was improved (p=0.00002) and urinary albumin excretion rate was better controlled (p=0.0096) in lisinopril-treated patients when compared with the combination treatment in diabetic pool. Serum creatinine levels increased significantly in non-diabetic patients (p=0.00004) receiving combination treatment. In addition, creatinine clearance (CLCR) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were significantly higher in diabetic (CLCR: p<0.00001; BUN: p=0.0098) as well as in non-diabetic (CLCR: p<0.00001; BUN: p=0.03) patients treated with combination treatment. The alterations in serum electrolytes, reduction in % platelet aggregation activity and improvement in lipid profile was more profound with combination treatment in comparison to lisinopril alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The antihypertensive efficacy and insulin sensitivity improving property of lisinopril along with the renal function might get worse in hypertensive osteoarthritic patients receiving concomitant treatment of oral diclofenac sodium with lisinopril. In addition to this, close monitoring of serum electrolytes is also suggested to rule out any long-term detrimental effect.

Treatment strategies for osteoarthritis patients with pain and hypertension

Out of 100 patients with osteoarthritis (OA), almost 40 have a concomitant diagnosis of hypertension. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors may trigger a rise in blood pressure (BP), which is more marked in patients with established hypertension. NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors attenuate the antihypertensive effect of several antihypertensive agents. Frequent BP controls are needed in treated hypertensive patients who are concomitantly receiving NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors because even a small increase in BP may be associated with an important rise in the risk of major cardiovascular complications. In meta-analyses, an increase in systolic BP of 5mmHg was associated with a 25% higher risk of cardiovascular events. These data have been confirmed in randomized studies with rofecoxib and celecoxib, where a modest increase in BP was associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular disease. There is emerging evidence that the COX-inhibiting nitric oxide donator (CINOD) class is promising in the treatment of patients with OA. Naproxcinod, the first CINOD investigated in clinical trials, is composed of the traditional NSAID naproxen covalently bound to the nitric oxide (NO)-donating moiety butanediol mono-nitrate (BDMN). The molecule has the potential to provide a sustained release of NO. In clinical studies, naproxcinod prevented the BP rise in normotensive and hypertensive patients observed with naproxen. The BP benefit of naproxcinod over naproxen was greater in patients concomitantly receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. These investigational data suggest that naproxcinod is a valuable alternative to NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors for treatment of OA patients.

The effects of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily vs. ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily on the blood pressure profiles of hypertensive osteoarthritis patients taking different classes of antihypertensive agents

AIMS

To examine whether the blood pressure (BP) profiles of lumiracoxib and high-dose ibuprofen differed in patients treated with different classes of antihypertensive medications.

METHODS

A 4-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study has compared the effects of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily (od) (n = 394) and ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily (tid) (n = 393) on ambulatory BP in osteoarthritis (OA) patients with controlled hypertension. Here, we present subgroup analyses for patients receiving different antihypertensive classes. The primary outcome was a comparison of the change in 24-h mean systolic ambulatory BP (MSABP) from baseline to week 4. Patients receiving angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) represented the largest subgroups receiving antihypertensive monotherapy.

RESULTS

For patients receiving an ARB monotherapy, the least squares mean (LSM) 24-h MSABP at week 4 fell with lumiracoxib 100 mg od and increased with ibuprofen 600 mg tid, creating an estimated treatment difference of 8.1 mmHg in favour of lumiracoxib (p < 0.001). For patients receiving an ACEI and a beta-blocker monotherapy, the estimated treatment difference was 8.2 mmHg (p < 0.001) and 5.8 mmHg (p = 0.002) in favour of lumiracoxib respectively. These treatment differences were greater than observed in the overall population (5.0 mmHg in favour of lumiracoxib). In patients receiving diuretics or calcium channel blockers, treatment differences in MSABP were smaller and not statistically significant, although they remained in favour of lumiracoxib.

CONCLUSION

Lumiracoxib 100 mg od resulted in less destabilisation of BP than high-dose ibuprofen 600 mg tid, and this effect was the greatest in subgroups treated with drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system.

Treatment of osteoarthritis in hypertensive patients

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Osteoarthritis and hypertension commonly co-exist. Treatment of osteoarthritis in hypertensive patients is a therapeutic challenge due to the adverse effects of some analgesics, especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), on blood pressure. Even small drug-induced rises in blood pressure due to therapy may significantly increase cardiovascular risk in these patients if sustained over the long term. Patients treated with certain classes of antihypertensive agent may be at particular risk of deterioration in blood pressure control with NSAID therapy. NSAIDs may also increase cardiovascular risk due to mechanisms other than by raising blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

We discuss the management of osteoarthritis in the hypertensive patient, review the evidence for the effects of paracetamol and NSAIDs on blood pressure and discuss novel therapeutic strategies for osteoarthritis that might diminish this problem. A literature search was undertaken in PubMed including the years 1980 - 2009.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Insight will be gained into the complexity of treating patients with co-existent osteoarthritis and hypertension and into possible new approaches to treating osteoarthritis symptoms effectively in these patients while minimising any adverse impact on blood pressure control.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

There are ways to minimise the adverse impact of treatment of osteoarthritis on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Hypertension in the elderly

Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Blood pressure elevation in the elderly is due to structural and functional changes that occur with aging. Treatment of hypertension reduces the risk of stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, cognitive impairment, and dementia in elderly patients with hypertension. A healthy lifestyle helps hypertension management, with benefits extending beyond lowering of blood pressure. Several classes of antihypertensive drugs are effective in preventing cardiovascular events. Treatment decisions should be guided by the presence of compelling indications such as diabetes or heart failure and by the tolerability of individual drugs or drug combinations in individual patients. The concomitant intake of certain medications that counter the effects of antihypertensive drugs and the frequent occurrence of orthostatic hypotension complicate treatment in older patients and drive down blood pressure control rates.

Effects of the cyclooxygenase inhibiting nitric oxide donator naproxcinod versus naproxen on systemic blood pressure in patients with osteoarthritis

Traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are associated with the destabilization of blood pressure (BP) control, particularly in hypertensive patients treated with blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. To assess the potential impact of nitric oxide donation, the effects of naproxcinod with naproxen and placebo on changes in BP were compared in a randomized clinical trial of 916 patients with osteoarthritis after 13 weeks of therapy. In addition, the effects of naproxcinod versus naproxen and placebo on systolic BP in patients with hypertension treated with renin-angiotensin system blockers were evaluated. Naproxcinod 750 mg twice daily reduced systolic BP compared to naproxen 500 mg twice daily (p <0.02). The 2 doses of naproxcinod showed reductions from baseline in diastolic BP relative to naproxen (p <0.04) and similar changes compared to placebo. In 207 patients with hypertension treated with renin-angiotensin-blocking agents alone or with diuretics, the difference in mean change from baseline in systolic BP between naproxen 500 mg and naproxcinod 750 mg was 6.5 mm Hg in favor of naproxcinod (p <0.02). The proportion of patients in the overall population with systolic BP increases > or =10 mm Hg was greater with naproxen 500 mg (22%) compared to naproxcinod 750 mg (14%, p = 0.04), naproxcinod 375 mg (14%, p = 0.055), and placebo (15.6%, p = 0.155). In conclusion, naproxcinod did not induce elevations of BP seen with naproxen, and it had similar effects on BP to that of placebo in patients with osteoarthritis.

Defining the problem of treating the patient with hypertension and arthritis pain

As osteoarthritis and hypertension coexist often in patients aged >60 years, the coadministration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with hypertension therapies is common practice in clinical medicine. Clinical trials in patients with arthritis have shown that many agents within the NSAID class may induce significant increases in systolic blood pressure, particularly when patients are using renin-angiotensin-blocking agents, beta-blockers, or diuretics as antihypertensives. The increases in blood pressure caused by NSAIDs are large enough to be of clinical concern. Sustained blood pressure elevations in the elderly are associated with increases in the risk of both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, congestive heart failure, and ischemic cardiac events. Recognition of the development of destabilization of blood pressure control in clinical practice and an awareness of those NSAIDs that place patients at risk for the development of hypertension could lead to reductions in cardiovascular morbidity.

Nitric oxide and cardiovascular effects: new insights in the role of nitric oxide for the management of osteoarthritis

Nitric oxide (NO) is an important mediator in both health and disease. In addition to its effects on vascular tone and platelet function, it plays roles in inflammation and pain perception that may be of relevance in osteoarthritis. Many patients with osteoarthritis take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) long term for pain control. Over recent years concern has been raised about the possible cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs. The reasons for this possible increased cardiovascular risk with NSAIDs are not yet entirely clear, although changes in blood pressure, renal salt handling and platelet function may contribute. Recently, drugs that chemically link a NSAID with a NO donating moiety (cyclo-oxygenase-inhibiting NO-donating drugs [CINODs]) were developed. NO is an important mediator of endothelial function, acting as a vasodilator and an inhibitor of platelet aggregation, and having anti-inflammatory properties. The potential benefits of CINODs include the combination of effective analgesic and anti-inflammatory actions with NO release, which might counterbalance any adverse cardiovascular effects of NSAIDs. Effects of CINODs in animal studies include inhibition of vasopressor responses, blood pressure reduction in hypertensive rats and inhibition of platelet aggregation. CINODs may also reduce ischemic damage to compromised myocardial tissue. In addition, endothelial dysfunction is a recognized feature of inflammatory arthritides, and therefore a drug that might provide slow release of NO to the vasculature while treating pain is an attractive prospect in these conditions. Further studies of the effects of CINODs in humans are required, but these agents represent a potential exciting advance in the management of osteoarthritis.

A comparison of the blood pressure changes of lumiracoxib with those of ibuprofen and naproxen

The 52-week Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET) investigated the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile of lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily compared with 2 traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily and naproxen 500 mg twice daily. Data from TARGET were analyzed to examine the effect of lumiracoxib compared with ibuprofen and naproxen on blood pressure (BP), incidence of de novo and aggravated hypertension, prespecified edema events, and congestive heart failure. Lumiracoxib resulted in smaller changes in BP as early as week 4. Least-squares mean change from baseline at week 4 for systolic BP was +0.57 mm Hg with lumiracoxib compared with +3.14 mm Hg with ibuprofen (P<.0001) and +0.43 with lumiracoxib compared with +1.80 mm Hg with naproxen (P<.0001). In conclusion, the use of lumiracoxib and traditional NSAIDs results in differing BP changes; these might be of clinical relevance.

Effect on blood pressure of lumiracoxib versus ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis and controlled hypertension: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vary in their impact on blood pressure and the effect of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily has not been studied previously. To examine whether lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily would result in lower 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure than ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily in osteoarthritis patients with controlled hypertension, a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 79 centres in nine countries.

METHODS

Hypertensive osteoarthritis patients of 50 years at least whose office blood pressure was less than 140/90 mmHg on stable antihypertensive treatment were randomized to lumiracoxib (n = 394) 100 mg once daily or ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily (n = 393) and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at baseline and end of study. The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the change in 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure from baseline to week 4. Secondary analyses included other blood pressure-related endpoints and efficacy (pain) measurements.

RESULTS

Compared with baseline, the 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure (least square mean) decreased in lumiracoxib-treated patients (-2.7 mmHg) and increased in ibuprofen-treated patients (+2.2 mmHg) at 4 weeks, estimated difference -5.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -3.8) in favour of lumiracoxib. The 24-h mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure changes were -1.5 mmHg (lumiracoxib), +0.5 mmHg (ibuprofen), difference -2.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval -2.7 to -1.3). Efficacy results were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily resulted in clinically significant lower blood pressure compared with ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily in osteoarthritis patients with well controlled hypertension.

Assessing the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on antihypertensive drug therapy using post-marketing surveillance database

Background

Antihypertensive and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat many common diseases. However, it has been suspected that interactions between these drugs exist. Here, we assessed the interactions between non-selective NSAIDs and several classes of antihypertensive drugs.

Methods

The study design was a cohort study using “The Antihypertensive Drug Database,” which is a collection of data accumulated from Drug Use Investigations. Subjects newly starting antihypertensive drug therapy were identified in the database. We compared the “User” group, who were co-administered NSAIDs, with the “Non-user” group, who were not. The outcome measure was the change in systolic blood pressure from the baseline after 2 months of treatment. We estimated the non-adjusted and adjusted differences in the change in systolic blood pressure between the “User” and “Non-user” groups.

Results

Data were collected for a total of 1,204 subjects, of whom 364 were prescribed beta blockers, 60 were prescribed diuretics, 628 were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and 152 were prescribed calcium channel blockers. The adjusted difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between the User (n = 301) and Non-user (n = 903) groups was 2.88 mmHg (95% confidence interval: 0.89, 4.87); thus, systolic blood pressure in the Non-User group decreased further from the baseline than that in the User group. In subjects administered beta blockers, diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers, the corresponding differences were 0.37 mmHg (-3.24, 3.98), 6.11 mmHg (-3.16, 15.37), 3.85 mmHg (1.16, 6.66), and 3.50 mmHg (-2.03, 9.02).

Conclusion

The effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs was attenuated by the co-administration of NSAIDs. The differences in the effects of NSAIDs varied with different classes of antihypertensive drugs.

Cardiovascular risk, hypertension, and NSAIDs

During the past 2 years, a great deal of evaluation has been conducted on the cardiovascular (CV) effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors. This review focuses on the effects of the NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors on blood pressure and CV events. Clinical trial databases for NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors have shown varying levels of destabilization of blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients as well as variable incident rates of the development of arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Nonselective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs can be used carefully in arthritis patients with hypertension and stable CV disorders (excluding congestive heart failure and moderate to severe kidney dysfunction) when the individual clinical benefit of anti-inflammatory therapy outweighs the CV and gastrointestinal risk.

COX-2 selective inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) in osteoarthritis (OA) and their gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renovascular, and hepatic side effects compared with traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and literature reviews.

RESULTS

Coxibs are comparable to traditional NSAIDs, providing moderate benefit for OA patients in pain and function versus placebo. NSAIDs, including coxibs, are superior to acetaminophen for OA, particularly in patients with moderate to severe pain. Coxibs decrease gastroduodenal ulcers (74% relative risk reduction) and ulcer complications (61% reduction) versus traditional NSAIDs. Meta-analysis of randomized trials indicates that coxibs increase the risk of myocardial infarctions approximately twofold versus placebo and versus naproxen, but do not increase the risk versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. NSAIDs, including coxibs, commonly cause fluid retention and increase blood pressure and uncommonly induce congestive heart failure or significant renal dysfunction; risk factors include advanced age, hypertension, and heart or kidney disease. NSAIDs are a rare cause of clinical hepatotoxicity (<1 liver-related death per 100,000 NSAID users in clinical studies). Increased rates of aminotransferase elevations occur with rofecoxib (2%) and high-dose lumiracoxib (3%), and postmarketing cases of clinical liver injury with lumiracoxib have been reported recently.

CONCLUSIONS

Coxibs are as effective as traditional NSAIDs and superior to acetaminophen for the treatment of OA. Coxibs cause fewer gastrointestinal complications than traditional NSAIDs. Coxibs increase cardiovascular risk versus placebo and naproxen-but probably not versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. Blood pressure commonly increases after initiation of selective or nonselective NSAIDs, especially in hypertensive patients.

Cardiovascular risk, hypertension, and NSAIDs

During the past 2 years, a great deal of evaluation has been conducted on the cardiovascular (CV) effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors. This review focuses on the effects of the NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors on blood pressure and CV events. Clinical trial databases for NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors have shown varying levels of destabilization of blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients as well as variable incident rates of the development of arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Nonselective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs can be used carefully in arthritis patients with hypertension and stable CV disorders (excluding congestive heart failure and moderate to severe kidney dysfunction) when the individual clinical benefit of anti-inflammatory therapy outweighs the CV and gastrointestinal risk.

Cardiovascular effects of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors

The data that have accumulated in recent years underscore the importance of carefully weighing the risks and benefits of traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors before making therapeutic decisions for the management of chronic arthritis. In clinical practice, the majority of patients with moderate to severe arthritis who might benefit from NSAID or COX-2 therapy are likely to be elderly and, therefore, at higher risk for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events than younger persons. Thus, these patients are more likely to be taking low-dose aspirin and using over-the-counter NSAIDs for pain. Selecting a combination of therapies that provides relief from arthritis-related symptoms, minimizes cardiovascular risk, and preserves the gastrointestinal mucosa is complex. Factors to consider include the interference of certain NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen, with the antiplatelet effects of aspirin; direct effects of non-selective NSAIDs and of COX-2 selective inhibitors on fluid retention and blood pressure; emerging data about cardiovascular risks associated with these drugs; differences between these agents with regard to associated gastrointestinal adverse event rates; and the feasibility of coadministration of anti-inflammatory therapies with gastro-protective agents.