Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of first-time acute myocardial infarction

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of myocardial infarction adjusting for use of proton pump-inhibitors in patients with no major risk factors: a nested case-control study in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

AIMS

Studies have found an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in association with some non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We evaluated this association in patients without major cardiovascular risk factors and assessed potential reverse causality bias.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this nested case-control study of patients aged 40-79 in Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD who received at least one NSAID prescription between 2006 and 2019, we found 8639 MI cases and 34 556 matched controls. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for MI comparing NSAID users to non-exposed according to the number and timing of NSAID prescriptions and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use. Current diclofenac use was associated with a two-fold increased risk of MI regardless of duration of use (adjusted OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.82-2.38). ORs ranged from 3 to 5 among current and recent diclofenac users newly exposed to PPIs. There was no spike in risk in new current diclofenac users not exposed to PPIs, but ORs rose with increasing prescriptions. The risk of MI in ibuprofen users was concentrated in new PPI users. There was no material increased risk in naproxen users, nor in past users of most NSAIDs in the absence of PPIs.

CONCLUSION

The risk of MI was elevated in current diclofenac users, particularly in new concomitant PPI users. ORs increased in new users of ibuprofen and PPIs but declined with extended use and were lower in non-PPI users. This suggests that some of the findings may be explained by reverse causality bias.

Long-Term Exposure to Elevated Systolic Blood Pressure in Predicting Incident Cardiovascular Disease: Evidence From Large-Scale Routine Electronic Health Records

Background How measures of long-term exposure to elevated blood pressure might add to the performance of "current" blood pressure in predicting future cardiovascular disease is unclear. We compared incident cardiovascular disease risk prediction using past, current, and usual systolic blood pressure alone or in combination. Methods and Results Using data from UK primary care linked electronic health records, we applied a landmark cohort study design and identified 80 964 people, aged 50 years (derivation cohort=64 772; validation cohort=16 192), who, at study entry, had recorded blood pressure, no prior cardiovascular disease, and no previous antihypertensive or lipid-lowering prescriptions. We used systolic blood pressure recorded up to 10 years before baseline to estimate past systolic blood pressure (mean, time-weighted mean, and variability) and usual systolic blood pressure (correcting current values for past time-dependent blood pressure fluctuations) and examined their prospective relation with incident cardiovascular disease (first hospitalization for or death from coronary heart disease or stroke/transient ischemic attack). We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and applied Bayesian analysis within a machine learning framework in model development and validation. Predictive performance of models was assessed using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration metrics. We found that elevated past, current, and usual systolic blood pressure values were separately and independently associated with increased incident cardiovascular disease risk. When used alone, the hazard ratio (95% credible interval) per 20-mm Hg increase in current systolic blood pressure was 1.22 (1.18-1.30), but associations were stronger for past systolic blood pressure (mean and time-weighted mean) and usual systolic blood pressure (hazard ratio ranging from 1.39-1.45). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a model that included current systolic blood pressure, sex, smoking, deprivation, diabetes mellitus, and lipid profile was 0.747 (95% credible interval, 0.722-0.811). The addition of past systolic blood pressure mean, time-weighted mean, or variability to this model increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% credible interval) to 0.750 (0.727-0.811), 0.750 (0.726-0.811), and 0.748 (0.723-0.811), respectively, with all models showing good calibration. Similar small improvements in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were observed when testing models on the validation cohort, in sex-stratified analyses, or by using different landmark ages (40 or 60 years). Conclusions Using multiple blood pressure recordings from patients' electronic health records showed stronger associations with incident cardiovascular disease than a single blood pressure measurement, but their addition to multivariate risk prediction models had negligible effects on model performance.

ADEpedia-on-OHDSI: A next generation pharmacovigilance signal detection platform using the OHDSI common data model

OBJECTIVE

Supplementing the Spontaneous Reporting System (SRS) with Electronic Health Record (EHR) data for adverse drug reaction detection could augment sample size, increase population heterogeneity and cross-validate results for pharmacovigilance research. The difference in the underlying data structures and terminologies between SRS and EHR data presents challenges when attempting to integrate the two into a single database. The Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) collaboration provides a Common Data Model (CDM) for organizing and standardizing EHR data to support large-scale observational studies. The objective of the study is to develop and evaluate an informatics platform known as ADEpedia-on-OHDSI, where spontaneous reporting data from FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) is converted into the OHDSI CDM format towards building a next generation pharmacovigilance signal detection platform.

METHODS

An extraction, transformation and loading (ETL) tool was designed, developed, and implemented to convert FAERS data into the OHDSI CDM format. A comprehensive evaluation, including overall ETL evaluation, mapping quality evaluation of drug names to RxNorm, and an evaluation of transformation and imputation quality, was then performed to assess the mapping accuracy and information loss using the FAERS data collected between 2012 and 2017. Previously published findings related to vascular safety profile of triptans were validated using ADEpedia-on-OHDSI in pharmacovigilance research. For the triptan-related vascular event detection, signals were detected by Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) in high-level group terms (HLGT) level, high-level terms (HLT) level and preferred term (PT) level using the original FAERS data and CDM-based FAERS respectively. In addition, six standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) related to vascular events were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 4,619,362 adverse event cases were loaded into 8 tables in the OHDSI CDM. For drug name mapping, 93.9% records and 47.0% unique names were matched with RxNorm codes. Mapping accuracy of drug names was 96% based on a manual verification of randomly sampled 500 unique mappings. Information loss evaluation showed that more than 93% of the data is loaded into the OHDSI CDM for most fields, with the exception of drug route data (66%). The replication study detected 5, 18, 47 and 6, 18, 50 triptan-related vascular event signals in MedDRA HLGT level, HLT level, and PT level for the original FAERS data and CDM-based FAERS respectively. The signal detection scores of six standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) of vascular events in the raw data study were found to be lower than those scores in the CDM study.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of this work would facilitate seamless integration and combined analyses of both SRS and EHR data for pharmacovigilance in ADEpedia-on-OHDSI, our platform for next generation pharmacovigilance.

Effects of captopril and valsartan on ventricular remodeling and inflammatory cytokines after interventional therapy for AMI

The effects of captopril and valsartan on ventricular remodeling and inflammatory cytokines after interventional therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were investigated. A total of 94 patients with AMI admitted to Honggang Hospital of Dongying from July 2016 to June 2017 were selected as study subjects. The patients were treated with interventional therapy and randomly divided into the observation group (n=47) and the control group (n=47). The control group received aspirin after operation, while the observation group received captopril and valsartan after operation. Three-dimensional ultrasonography was performed to evaluate ventricular remodeling. The related parameters included left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-systolic sphericity index/end-diastolic sphericity index (ESSI/EDSI), systolic dyssynchrony index (SDI), diastolic dyssynchrony index (DDI), dispersion end systole (DISPES), DDI-late and DISPED-late. The levels of inflammatory cytokines were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The incidence of adverse reactions after treatment was compared. After treatment, LVEF in the control group was significantly lower than that in the observation group, while LVEDV, LVESV and the ratio of early diastolic (E) and late diastolic (A) (E/A) in the control group were significantly higher than those in the observation group (p<0.05). EDSI, DDI-late and DISPED-late in the control group were significantly higher than those in the observation group (p<0.05). ESSI, SDI and DISPES in the control group were significantly higher than those in the observation group (p<0.05). The levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group at 1, 4 and 8 weeks after treatment (p<0.05). The administration of captopril and valsartan after interventional therapy for AMI can effectively improve the cardiac function of patients, improve the synchronism of left ventricular diastole and contraction, and reduce the level of inflammation. It is safe and reliable, and has important clinical significance.

Nonselective Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk: Are They Safe?

Objective:

To assess possible cardiovascular risks associated with use of nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Data Sources:

Medline and Embase were searched from January 1985 through April 2007 and relevant studies were retrieved.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Peer-reviewed, prospective, double-blind, case–control, and cohort-design studies published in the English language literature were considered eligible for review. Previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews were also analyzed. In total, 17 case–control studies; 9 cohort studies; 1 prospective, double-blind study; 3 meta-analyses; and 1 systematic review of observational studies were identified.

Data Synthesis:

Three studies were prospective and the remainder consisted of observational, retrospective studies, with most reporting acute fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction as the cardiovascular endpoint. Among the nonselective NSAIDs, diclofenac appears to pose the highest risk for cardiovascular toxicity; other agents trend toward a neutral effect with respect to cardiovascular risk. Although the data are suggestive, it remains unclear whether naproxen provides protective cardiovascular effects among patients on chronic therapy.

Conclusions:

Currently available data are insufficient for defining evidence-based clinical guidelines for the use of NSAIDs, and the need for additional research, specifically randomized controlled trials, is evident. Diclofenac demonstrates a significant risk while naproxen appears to pose the lowest, albeit nonsignificant, risk for cardiovascular morbidity. Although the current clinical evidence may not warrant recommending naproxen as the preferred NSAID treatment, it may be prudent to avoid diclofenac for patients with cardiovascular risk factors requiring NSAID treatment.

Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions frequently include non-randomized studies. These are subject to confounding and a range of other biases that are seldom considered in detail when synthesizing and interpreting the results. Our aims were to assess the reliability and usability of a new Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool for non-randomized studies of interventions and to determine whether restricting analysis to studies with low or moderate RoB made a material difference to the results of the reviews.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We selected two systematic reviews of population-based, controlled non-randomized studies of the relationship between the use of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and major cardiovascular events. Two epidemiologists applied the Cochrane RoB tool and made assessments across the seven specified domains of bias for each of 37 component studies. Inter-rater agreement was measured using the weighted Kappa statistic. We grouped studies according to overall RoB and performed statistical pooling for (a) all studies and (b) only studies with low or moderate RoB. Kappa scores across the seven bias domains ranged from 0.50 to 1.0. In the COX-2 inhibitor review, two studies had low overall RoB, 14 had moderate RoB, and five had serious RoB. In the TZD review, six studies had low RoB, four had moderate RoB, four had serious RoB, and two had critical RoB. The pooled odds ratios for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone remained significantly elevated when analyses were confined to studies with low or moderate RoB. However, the estimate for myocardial infarction declined from 1.14 (95% CI 1.07-1.24) to 1.06 (95% CI 0.99-1.13) when analysis was confined to studies with low RoB. Estimates of pooled relative risks of cardiovascular events with COX-2 inhibitors compared with no nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug changed little when analyses were confined to studies with low or moderate RoB. The exception was a rise in the relative risk associated with ibuprofen from 1.07 (95% CI 0.97-1.18) to 1.14 (95% CI 1.03-1.26). The main limitation of our study was testing the instrument on a narrow range of pharmacoepidemiological studies; we cannot assume our findings extend to a broader range of interventions and settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cochrane RoB tool highlighted a wide range of risks of bias in studies included in two widely cited reviews and had the potential to change the conclusions of the reviews. Systematic reviews that incorporate non-randomized studies of medical interventions should include a detailed assessment of RoB for each included study.

Fidelity assessment of a clinical practice research datalink conversion to the OMOP common data model

Background

The unique structure and coding of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) presents challenges for epidemiologic analysis and for comparisons with other databases. To address this limitation we sought to transform CPRD into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM).

Methods

An extraction, transformation and loading process was developed, which detailed source code mappings, Read code domain classification, an imputation algorithm for drug duration and special handling of lifestyle/clinical data. Completeness and accuracy of the above elements were assessed. A final validation exercise involved replication of a published case–control study that examined use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the risk of first-time acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in raw CPRD data and the CPRD CDM.

Findings

All elements of the CPRD CDM transformation were assessed to be of high quality. 99.9 % of database condition records and 89.7 % of database drug records were mapped (majority unmapped drugs were devices and over-the-counter products); 3.1 % of duration imputations were deemed possibly erroneous and prevalences for selected conditions and drugs across CPRD raw and CDM data were equivalent. Results between the replication raw data and CDM study agreed for conditions, demographics and lifestyle data with slight NSAID exposure data loss owing to unmapped drugs.

Conclusion

CPRD can be accurately transformed into the OMOP CDM with acceptable information loss across drugs, conditions and observations. We determined that for a particular use, case CDM structure was adequate and mappings could be improved but did not substantially change the results of our analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-014-0214-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Coxibs: pharmacology, toxicity and efficacy in cancer clinical trials

This chapter briefly summarizes the current knowledge about the role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specially focusing on those selective for cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 (coxibs), on colorectal cancer (CRC) onset, and progression. Both epidemiological and experimental studies have reported that these drugs reduce the risk of developing colonic tumors. However, the promising use of coxibs in chemoprevention was halted abruptly due to the detection on enhanced cardiovascular (CV) risks. Thus, we discuss the clinical data and plausible mechanisms of CV hazards associated with traditional NSAIDs and coxibs. The extent of inhibition of COX-2-dependent prostacyclin, an important vasoprotective and anti-thrombotic pathway, in the absence of a complete suppression of COX-1-dependent platelet function, at common doses of NSAIDs, might play a role in CV toxicity. Coxibs might still be reserved for younger patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). However, it should be taken into consideration that recent findings of enhanced thromboxane (TX)A(2) biosynthesis in colon tumorigenesis, detected in humans. In this context, the use of low-dose aspirin (which mainly acts by inhibiting platelet COX-1-dependent TXA(2)) may have a place for chemoprevention of CRCs (see also Chap. 3 ). The possible use of coxibs to prevent CRC will depend mainly on research progresses in biomarkers able to identify the patients uniquely susceptible to developing thrombotic events by inhibition of COX-2.

Risk of new acute myocardial infarction hospitalization associated with use of oral and parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs): a case-crossover study of Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims database and review of current evidence

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have documented the increased cardiovascular risk associated with the use of some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Despite this, many old NSAIDs are still prescribed worldwide. Most of the studies to date have been focused on specific oral drugs or limited by the number of cases examined. We studied the risk of new acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization with current use of a variety of oral and parenteral NSAIDs in a nationwide population, and compared our results with existing evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a case-crossover study using the Taiwan's National Health Insurance claim database, identifying patients with new AMI hospitalized in 2006. The 1-30 days and 91-120 days prior to the admission were defined as case and matched control period for each patient, respectively. Uses of NSAIDs during the respective periods were compared using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for use of co-medications.

RESULTS

8354 new AMI hospitalization patients fulfilled the study criteria. 14 oral and 3 parenteral NSAIDs were selected based on drug utilization profile among 13.7 million NSAID users. The adjusted odds ratio, aOR (95% confidence interval), for risk of AMI and use of oral and parenteral non-selective NSAIDs were 1.42 (1.29, 1.56) and 3.35 (2.50, 4.47), respectively, and significantly greater for parenteral than oral drugs (p for interaction<0.01). Ketorolac was associated with the highest AMI risk among both of oral and parenteral NSAIDs studied, the aORs were 2.02 (1.00, 4.09) and 4.27 (2.90, 6.29) respectively. Use of oral flurbiprofen, ibuprofen, sulindac, diclofenac, and parenteral ketoprofen were also significantly associated with increased AMI risk. The results of the present study were consistent with the majority of evidence from previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The collective evidence revealed the tendency of increased AMI risk with current use of some NSAIDs. A higher AMI risk associated with use of parenteral NSAIDs was observed in the present study. Ketorolac had the highest associated risk in both oral and parenteral NSAIDs studied. Though further investigation to confirm the association is warranted, prescribing physicians and the general public should be cautious about the potential risk of AMI when using NSAIDs.

A plea for a more epidemiological and patient-oriented pharmacovigilance

The present work has the main objective of summarizing the history of pharmacovigilance and the associated methods and legislation and of showing how it could/should be reformulated in terms of a transition from a drug-centered to a patient/population-centered approach. The recurrent emergencies associated with new drug molecules raise many questions about the efficacy and efficiency of methodological tools as well as the role of regulatory systems. Drugs cannot be considered as an independent variable: the evaluation of all their effects must take into account the real contexts in which they are used and which affect not only their efficacy but also their tolerability and safety. Specific emphasis is given to recent and promising developments focused on the participation of patients and populations as key actors in producing knowledge that could technically integrate what has been produced so far and allow the evolution of surveillance from a role of controlling severe adverse reactions attributable to individual molecules to one of promoting a comprehensive assessment of the benefit/risk profile of drugs as they are utilized in society.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of incident myocardial infarction and heart failure, and all-cause mortality in the Australian veteran community

AIMS

We studied the association between either non-selective NSAIDs (ns-NSAIDs), selective COX-2 inhibitors, or any NSAID and risk of incident myocardial infarction (MI) and heart failure (HF), and all-cause mortality in elderly subjects.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective nested case-control study on Australian veterans using nationwide hospital admission and pharmacy dispensing data. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the risk of events for three different measures of prescription supply exposure over the last 2 years: (i) supplied at least once, (ii) supply frequency: supplied more than twice within the last 30 days, once or twice within the last 30 days, and once or more 30 days to 2 years and (iii) total supplies.

RESULTS

We identified 83 623 cases and 1 662 099 matched controls (1:20) contributing 3 862 931 persons-years of observation. NSAID use at least once within the last 2 years did not significantly affect the risk of MI (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96, 1.04) but was associated with a mildly reduced risk of HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92, 0.98). There was a reduced all-cause mortality with at least one supply of either ns-NSAIDs (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90, 0.97), selective COX-2 inhibitors (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88, 0.93), or any NSAID (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85, 0.90). Risk of death was also inversely associated with the number of prescription supplies.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAID use is not associated with an increased risk of incident MI and HF but is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in Australian veterans.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the risk of cardiovascular diseases

Previous large epidemiological studies reporting on the association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular diseases mainly focussed on prevalent diseases rather than on the incidence of newly diagnosed cardiovascular outcomes. We used the UK-based General Practice Research Database (GPRD) to assess the prevalence and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in COPD patients aged 40-79 between 1995 and 2005, and we randomly matched COPD-free comparison patients to COPD patients. In nested-case control analyses, we compared the risks of developing an incident diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmias, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, or stroke between patients with and without COPD, stratifying the analyses by COPD-severity, using COPD-treatment as proxy for disease severity. We identified 35,772 patients with COPD and the same number of COPD-free patients. Most cardiovascular diseases were more prevalent among COPD patients than among the comparison group of COPD-free patients. The relative risk estimates of developing an incident diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmia (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.98-1.43), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.97-1.89), pulmonary embolism (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.62-3.87), myocardial infarction (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.73), or stroke (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92-1.38), tended to be increased for patients with COPD as compared to COPD-free controls. The findings of this large observational study provide further evidence that patients with COPD are at increased risk for most cardiovascular diseases.

Pre-clinical pharmacokinetics of the cyclooxygenase-inhibiting nitric oxide donor (CINOD) AZD3582

The pre-clinical pharmacokinetics of AZD3582 (4-(nitrooxy)butyl-(2S)-2-(6-methoxy-2-naphthyl) propanoate) and its primary metabolites (naproxen and nitrate) were evaluated. AZD3582 had intermediate and passive intestinal permeability (40 times lower than for naproxen), high systemic plasma clearance (CL), substantial gastrointestinal hydrolysis, intermediate volume of distribution (Vss; ≥3.4 L kg−1) and half-life (t1/2; 7 h), negligible plasma protein binding (∼0.1%), low/intermediate oral uptake (≥13% as intact substance) and low and varying oral bioavailability (mean 1.4% in minipigs and 3.9% in dogs). Following administration of therapeutically relevant oral doses, plasma concentrations of AZD3582 were very low (≤ 13 nM in minipigs and ≤442 nM in dogs; rat data not available) and varying, and accumulation was not apparent. The pharmacokinetics of AZD3582 did not show apparent dose-, time- or gender-related dependency. In blood and intestine, AZD3582 was hydrolysed to naproxen, nitrate and other metabolites. The rate of this conversion was higher in rats than in non-rodents, including man. Despite near-complete to complete uptake of the oral dose, AZD3582 administration resulted in a lower bioavailability (F) of total naproxen than naproxen administration: 55% and 85% relative bioavailability (Frel) in rats and minipigs, respectively. An increased distribution to metabolizing tissues of naproxen (as AZD3582), and thereby enhanced naproxen CL, is believed to be responsible. Following dosing of AZD3582 or naproxen, the t1/2 of naproxen was 5, 9–10 and &gt;40 h in rats, minipigs and dogs, respectively. The Vss and CL for naproxen were small. Plasma protein binding was extensive, and saturation was observed within the therapeutic dose and concentration range. Intake of food prolonged the systemic absorption of naproxen in the minipig. The pharmacokinetics of naproxen did not show apparent time- or gender-related dependency. Following oral dosing of [3H]-, [14C]- and [15N]-AZD3582, most [14C]- and [3H]-activity was excreted in urine and expired air, respectively. Seventeen per cent of [15N] was recovered in minipig urine as [15N]-nitrate. About 30% of [3H]-activity (naproxen and/or naproxen-related metabolites) was excreted in bile and re-absorbed. Concentrations of [14C]-activity (nitrooxy-butyl group and/or its metabolites) in milk were higher than in plasma and [3H]-activity in milk. [3H]- and [14C]-excretion data indicated that intact AZD3582 was not excreted in urine, bile or milk to a significant extent. There was no apparent consistency between tissue distribution of [14C]- and [3H]-activity in the rat, which suggests rapid and extensive metabolism of extravascularly distributed AZD3582. A substantial increase of plasma nitrate levels was found after single and repeated oral doses of AZD3582 in the minipig. No inhibition or induction of CYP450 was found.

Prothrombotic effects of diclofenac on arteriolar platelet activation and thrombosis in vivo

BACKGROUND

Diclofenac, like selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, which alter vascular levels of platelet active prostaglandins, has been reported to increase rates of acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE

The study was performed to investigate, in an animal model of arterial thrombosis in vivo, whether diclofenac differentially influences platelet activation and thrombosis in vessels under non-stimulated conditions or during acute systemic inflammation, such as induced by tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha).

METHODS

Platelet-vessel wall interaction (PVWI), firm platelet adhesion and arterial thrombosis following vessel injury were analyzed by intravital microscopy in arterioles of hamsters in the dorsal skinfold chamber model. Prostacyclin [prostaglandin I(2) (PGI(2))] and thromboxane A(2) (TxA(2)) metabolites were measured. In vitro, endothelial adhesion molecule expression in cultured human microvascular endothelial cells was analyzed.

RESULTS

Under non-stimulated conditions, diclofenac (1 mg kg(-1)) enhanced PVWI, which was not mediated by increased adhesion molecule expression, but by decreased systemic PGI(2) levels. Following ferric chloride-induced endothelial injury, diclofenac accelerated thrombotic vessel occlusion time, an effect that was reversed by the stable PGI(2) analog iloprost. TNF-alpha, through induction of endothelial adhesion molecule expression, also enhanced PVWI, firm adhesion, and arterial thrombosis, but simultaneous treatment with TNF-alpha and diclofenac did not have an additive effect.

CONCLUSIONS

By decreasing levels of PGI(2) without, at the same time, altering prothrombotic TxA(2) levels, diclofenac can exert prothrombotic effects. However, this is not the case when an inflammatory situation is created by TNF-alpha treatment. These data may explain the enhanced risk of acute myocardial infarction observed in patients taking diclofenac.

Does the varied use of NSAIDs explain the differences in the risk of myocardial infarction?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) with diclofenac, ibuprofen and naproxen, taking into account the exposure patterns.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using the General Practice Research Database. Setting. UK primary care. Subjects. Patients aged 40+ years prescribed a traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The control cohort was frequency matched by disease risk score.

INTERVENTION

Observational comparisons of MI rates.

RESULTS

The study included 729,294 NSAID users and 443,047 controls. The relative rate (RR) for MI increased with cumulative and daily dose (RR = 1.05 with 0-4 prior prescriptions and RR = 1.49 with 30+; RR = 1.05 with daily dose of < 1200 mg ibuprofen and RR = 1.96 with dose of > or = 2400 mg per day; for diclofenac, the RR was 1.13 with < 150 mg per day and 2.03 with > or = 300 mg per day). Diclofenac users had higher risks of MI (RR = 1.21) than ibuprofen (RR = 1.04) or naproxen (RR = 1.03) users, but exposure varied between these drugs. Taking into account these exposure differences, it was found that the risk of MI was comparable in current and past long-term users. The patterns of hazard rates (i.e. absolute risks) of MI were similar in patients using ibuprofen, diclofenac or naproxen with similar history of NSAID use. There was no statistical difference between ibuprofen, diclofenac and ibuprofen in the linear trends for cumulative dose or daily dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term users of traditional NSAIDs have an increased risk of MI that is probably explained by the underlying disease severity. Most of the differences in MI risk between diclofenac, ibuprofen or naproxen may be explained by their varied use.

[Are there any differences in the cardiovascular tolerance between classical NSAIDs and coxibs?]

Three placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated deleterious cardiovascular (CV) effects of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and pare/valdecoxib. It remains to be determined whether this CV toxicity is specific to coxibs, or shared with all non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Seven meta-analyses show that, in comparison with non-specific NSAIDs, the risk of thrombotic CV accident is increased with rofecoxib and celecoxib, but not with valdecoxib or lumiracoxib. Concerning the risk of thrombotic CV accident, seven of the ten observational studies which have evaluated the risk, have found an increased risk for the non-specific NSAID in comparison with non-exposed subjects,. The seven observational studies, which evaluated the risk of coxibs, have all found an increased risk with rofecoxib, and two with celecoxib. Three studies out of six have shown an increase of risk with rofecoxib and one study out of five with celecoxib. Two of the three studies, which have compared rofecoxib with celecoxib, have found an increased risk with rofecoxib. Concerning the risk of arterial hypertension, oedemas or congestive cardiac insufficiency, a meta-analysis and a randomised trial have shown a deleterious effect of rofecoxib in comparison with celecoxib and non-specific NSAID. Two studies have shown a deleterious effect of the non-selective NSAID and three a deleterious effect of rofecoxib in comparison with non-exposed subjects. Three studies have demonstrated a deleterious effect of rofecoxib in comparison with non-specific NSAID. No study has shown any deleterious effect of celecoxib in comparison with subjects non-exposed or exposed to non-specific NSAID. These studies suggest that all the NSAID, specific or not, increase the CV and renal risk. This risk seems variable from a compound to another one and must be evaluated, for each patient, according to the susceptibility and associated risk factors. While waiting for other long-term controlled studies, the available data show the existence of a risk of CV secondary effect linked to the class of NSAID, specific (coxibs) or not.

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.

Are COX-2 inhibitors preferable to non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with risk of cardiovascular events taking low-dose aspirin?

Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with increased risk of acute cardiovascular events. Only aspirin offers primary and secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, but trials have not answered directly whether low-dose aspirin is cardioprotective with COX-2 inhibitors. A large inception cohort study showed that concomitant use of aspirin reduced risk of cardiovascular events when given with rofecoxib, celecoxib, sulindac, meloxicam, and indometacin but not when given with ibuprofen. In large trials assessing gastrointestinal safety, there were fewer gastrointestinal events in patients using both COX-2 inhibitors and aspirin than in those using non-selective NSAIDs and aspirin; significantly fewer uncomplicated upper gastrointestinal events took place in the MEDAL trial. Analysis of VIGOR and two capsule endoscopy studies showed significantly less distal gastrointestinal blood loss with COX-2 inhibitors than with non-selective NSAIDs. Endoscopy trials showed that low-dose aspirin does not diminish the gastrointestinal benefits of COX-2 inibitors over non-selective NSAIDs. In an elderly epidemiological cohort receiving aspirin, both celecoxib and rofecoxib reduced risk of admission for gastrointestinal events. Comparison of the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks is difficult: likelihood and severity of cardiovascular events differ between individuals, agents, and exposure. Mortality associated with gastrointestinal events is less frequent than with cardiovascular events, but asymptomatic ulcers can result in severe complications. Data support the conclusion that COX-2 inhibitors are preferable to non-selective NSAIDs in patients with chronic pain and cardiovascular risk needing low-dose aspirin, but relative risks and benefits should be assessed individually for each patient.

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

OBJECTIVE

The comparative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was determined.

METHODS

The results of studies of a suitable size in colonic adenoma and arthritis-that had been published in English and from which crude data about MIs could be extracted-were evaluated. Medline, Embase and Cinahl (2000-2006) databases, as well as published bibliographies, were used as data sources. Systematic reviews examined MI risks in case-control and cohort studies, as well as in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

14 case-control studies (74 673 MI patients, 368 968 controls) showed no significant association of NSAIDs with MI in a random-effects model (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.37) and a small risk of MI in a fixed-effects model (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35). Sensitivity analyses showed higher risks of MI in large European studies involving matched controls. Six cohort studies (387 983 patient years, 1 120 812 control years) showed no significant risk of MI with NSAIDs (RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07); the risk was higher with rofecoxib (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.34) but not with any other NSAIDs. Four RCTs of NSAIDs in colonic adenoma (6000 patients) showed an increased risk of MI (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01). Fourteen RCTs in arthritis (45 425 patients) showed more MIs with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs (Peto OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4), but fewer serious upper gastrointestinal events (Peto OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53).

CONCLUSION

The overall risk of MI with NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs was small; rofecoxib showed the highest risk. There was an increased MI risk with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs compared with NSAIDs, but less serious upper gastrointestinal toxicity.

Selective COX-2 inhibitors, NSAIDs and cardiovascular events - is celecoxib the safest choice?

Inhibitors of cyclo-oxogenase (COX) are widely used anti-inflammatory drugs. In recent years concerns have arisen about the cardiovascular safety of these drugs, initially because of reported associations between therapy with the COX-2 selective inhibitor rofecoxib and myocardial infarction. However, subsequent data have suggested an association between therapy with non-selective COX inhibitors (NSAIDs) and serious cardiovascular events. This article reviews the clinical trial and population data linking COX inhibition to cardiovascular events. The data currently available suggests that both specific and non-specific COX inhibitors may increase the risk of serious cardiovascular events, but that the effect varies between the individual drugs. The strongest evidence for an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events is with rofecoxib therapy. Celecoxib therapy may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but only when used at doses substantially higher than those recommended for the treatment of arthritis. There is a greater body of evidence supporting the relative cardiovascular safety of celecoxib when used at the doses recommended for the treatment of arthritis than for any of the other selective COX-2 inhibitors or NSAIDs.

Association between nonnaproxen NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors and hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction among the elderly: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between rofecoxib, celecoxib, diclofenac, and ibuprofen and the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in an elderly population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using data from the government of Quebec health insurance agency databases, among patients 65-80 years of age who filled a prescription for any of the study drugs during 1999-2002. Cox regression models with time-dependent exposure were used to compare the incidence rates of hospitalization for AMI adjusting for patients' baseline characteristics. Analyses stratified by dose and number of supplied days were also conducted.

RESULTS

At the index date, a total of 91 062 patients were taking rofecoxib, 127 928 celecoxib, 49 193 diclofenac, and 15 601 ibuprofen. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95%CI) of hospitalization for AMI were: celecoxib versus rofecoxib: 0.90 (0.79, 1.01); ibuprofen versus rofecoxib: 0.95 (0.65, 1.37); diclofenac versus rofecoxib: 1.01 (0.84, 1.22). In secondary analyses based on intended duration of use, neither COX-2 selective inhibitor was associated with a higher risk than ibuprofen or diclofenac. The unadjusted risk of AMI for all NSAIDs increased with dose. In the direct two way adjusted comparison of each NSAID stratified by dose, the only statistically significant difference was with rofecoxib >25 mg/day versus celecoxib >200 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

In this study there was no difference between AMI occurrence in elderly patients taking rofecoxib or celecoxib at recommended doses for chronic indications versus those taking ibuprofen/diclofenac. However, the risk of AMI was higher among patients using higher doses of rofecoxib (>25 mg/day) compared to patients using higher doses of celecoxib (>200 mg/day).

Diclofenac potassium 12.5mg tablets for mild to moderate pain and fever: a review of its pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety

Non-prescription (over-the-counter [OTC]) analgesics are used for the short-term treatment of acute painful conditions of mild to moderate intensity in everyday life. Well documented safety and efficacy, a rapid onset of action and a flexible daily dosing regimen are essential in this context. Film-coated, immediate-release, low-dose diclofenac potassium, developed for OTC use, offers a flexible daily dosing regimen with an initial dose of two tablets (2 x 12.5mg) followed by one or two tablets up to a maximum daily dose of six tablets (75 mg/day). The maximum plasma drug concentration is reached 30 minutes after administration, and the mean terminal half-life is 1-2 hours, allowing a 4- to 6-hour duration of activity, depending on the condition. Thirteen randomised, double-blind trials with both placebo and active controls have demonstrated the efficacy of diclofenac potassium 12.5mg tablets in conditions suitable for treatment with OTC medication, for example, acute lower back pain, headache, acute pain after dental extraction, symptoms of cold and influenza (including fever), and dysmenorrhoea. A single dose of diclofenac potassium 12.5mg is the lowest recommended effective dose. A two-tablet single dose of 25mg is at least as effective as ibuprofen 400mg. A flexible dosing regimen of an initial two tablets followed by one or two tablets up to a total daily dose of 75 mg is as effective as ibuprofen used in comparable fashion up to a total daily dose of 1200 mg. The incidence of adverse events in patients taking single or multiple doses of diclofenac potassium is similar to that of ibuprofen and placebo. In a safety study conducted to compare diclofenac potassium with ibuprofen for up to 3 months in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, no differences in the pattern of adverse events were noted. There was no evidence of either hepatic injury or cardiovascular safety-related issues at any time during the study. Patients are generally capable of taking diclofenac potassium appropriately. A maximum OTC treatment duration of 5 days for pain and 3 days for fever is recommended.

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.

Diclofenac and acute myocardial infarction in patients with no major risk factors

AIMS

To explore further a recent finding that long-term users of diclofenac are at increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) similar to users of rofecoxib and celecoxib.

METHODS

Using the General Practice Research Database, we conducted three separate nested case-control studies of three nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) where use started after 1 January 1993--diclofenac, ibuprofen and naproxen. Cases of AMI were identified between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2000. Relative risk (RR) estimates for AMI in patients with no major clinical risk factors were determined for each NSAID according to number of prescriptions received compared with one prescription. Results were adjusted for variables possibly related to risk of AMI.

RESULTS

There was no material elevation of AMI risk according to the number of prescriptions for ibuprofen [RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) and 1.7 (0.9, 3.1) for use of 10-19 and 20+ prescriptions, respectively, compared with one prescription] or naproxen [RRs 1.0 (0.5, 2.2) and 2.0 (0.9, 4.5) for use of 10-19 and 20+ prescriptions, respectively]. However, a substantial increased risk similar to that obtained in our prior study was found in patients who received >or=10 prescriptions for diclofenac [RRs 1.9 (1.3, 2.7) and 2.0 (1.3, 3.0) for use of 10-19 and 20+ prescriptions, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive use of diclofenac substantially increases the risk of AMI. There is little suggestion of such an effect in users of ibuprofen and naproxen.

Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and coronary occlusion--exploring dose-response relationships

AIMS

To investigate the relationship between acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ingested doses of selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

METHODS

Case-control study, commenced August 2003. Cases were patients admitted to hospital with ACS (myocardial infarction/unstable angina). Controls were hospital patients admitted for reasons other than acute vascular ischaemia or conditions that are believed to be complications of treatment with COX-2 inhibitors or NSAIDs. Structured interviews were undertaken within 7 days of admission, collecting information on cardiovascular events and risk factors and all ingested drugs, including the doses of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAID consumed in the previous week and month.

RESULTS

An interim analysis of the data was conducted in late 2004 to inform a review of the COX-2 inhibitors by the Australian drug regulatory agency. Between August 2003 and October 2004, we recruited 328 ACS cases and 478 controls. With non-use of COX-2 inhibitors or NSAIDs as the reference the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for ACS were: celecoxib 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.59, 2.11), rofecoxib 0.63 (0.31, 1.28) and other NSAIDs 0.67 (0.41, 1.09). Among control subjects, median daily ingested doses of celecoxib and rofecoxib were 200 mg and 13.4 mg, respectively. Using these to stratify risk, adjusted ORs for ACS were: 'low' dose (< median) 0.44 (0.19, 1.03); 'high' dose (>/= median) 1.22 (0.67, 2.21). A test for interaction across doses was statistically significant, OR 2.8 (1.0, 7.7), suggesting that at low doses, COX-2 inhibitors may be protective, becoming risk-inducing only at higher doses.

CONCLUSION

The possibility that the gradient of cardiovascular risk with COX-2 inhibitors runs from protective to risk-inducing has biological plausibility and merits further investigation.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and acute myocardial infarction in patients with no major risk factors

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of long-term use of five nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)--rofecoxib, celecoxib, ibuprofen, naproxen, and diclofenac--in relation to acute myocardial infarction.

DESIGN

Five separate nested case-control studies, one for each NSAID, designed to minimize important biases present in other observational studies. Setting. University-affiliated research program. Data Source. The United Kingdom General Practice Research Database (GPRD).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified all people in the GPRD aged 30-79 years who had a first recorded prescription for rofecoxib, celecoxib, ibuprofen, naproxen, or diclofenac after January 1, 1999. Cases of newly diagnosed, first-time acute myocardial infarction were then identified from the study population, along with matched control subjects. Relative risk estimates for acute myocardial infarction in patients with no recorded major clinical risk factors for acute myocardial infarction were determined for each NSAID according to receipt of 2-4, 5-9, 10-19, or 20 or more prescriptions compared with receipt of only 1 prescription. Results were adjusted for relevant variables possibly related to the risk for acute myocardial infarction. No material elevation of risk according to the number of prescriptions received for ibuprofen or naproxen was noted. However, a substantial increased risk similar to that found in clinical trials was noted in patients who received 10 or more prescriptions for rofecoxib, celecoxib, or diclofenac.

CONCLUSION

Extensive use of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and diclofenac increases the risk of acute myocardial infarction, but similar use of ibuprofen and naproxen does not.

Risk of acute myocardial infarction with nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a meta-analysis

The use of cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The association between the risks of AMI with nonselective NSAIDs is less clear. We reviewed the published evidence and assessed the risk of AMI with nonselective NSAIDs. We performed a meta-analysis of all studies containing data from population databases that compared the risk of AMI in NSAID users with that in non-users or remote NSAID users. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed AMI. Fourteen studies met predefined criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Nonselective NSAIDs as a class was associated with increased AMI risk (relative AMI risk 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.31). Similar findings were found with diclofenac (relative AMI risk 1.38, 95% CI 1.22-1.57) and ibuprofen (relative AMI risk 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17). However, this effect was not observed with naproxen (relative AMI risk 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.11). In conclusion, based on current evidence, there is a general direction of effect, which suggests that at least some nonselective NSAIDs increase AMI risk. Analysis based on the limited data available for individual NSAIDs, including diclofenac and ibuprofen, supported this finding; however, this was not the case for naproxen. Nonselective NSAIDs are frequently prescribed, and so further investigation into the risk of AMI is warranted because the potential for harm can be substantial.

Heart failure induced by non-cardiac drugs

Although heart failure is predominantly caused by cardiovascular conditions such as hypertension, coronary heart disease and valvular heart disease, it can also be an adverse reaction induced by drug therapy. In addition, some drugs have the propensity to adversely affect haemodynamic mechanisms in patients with an already existing heart condition. In this article, non-cardiac drugs known to be associated with the development or worsening of heart failure are reviewed. Moreover, drugs that may adversely affect the heart as a pump without causing symptoms or signs of heart failure are also included. The drugs discussed include anticancer agents such as anthracyclines, mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, capecitabine and trastuzumab; immunomodulating drugs such as interferon-alpha-2, interleukin-2, infliximab and etanercept; antidiabetic drugs such as rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and troglitazone; antimigraine drugs such as ergotamine and methysergide; appetite suppressants such as fenfulramine, dexfenfluramine and phentermine; tricyclic antidepressants; antipsychotic drugs such as clozapine; antiparkinsonian drugs such as pergolide and cabergoline; glucocorticoids; and antifungal drugs such as itraconazole and amphotericin B. NSAIDs, including selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, are included as a result of their ability to cause heart disease, particularly in patients with an already existing cardiorenal dysfunction. Two drug groups are of particular concern. Anthracyclines and their derivatives may cause cardiomyopathy in a disturbingly high number of exposed individuals, who may develop symptoms of insidious onset several years after drug therapy. The risk seems to encompass all exposed individuals, but data suggest that children are particularly vulnerable. Thus, a high degree of awareness towards this particular problem is warranted in cancer survivors subjected to anthracycline-based chemotherapy. A second group of problematic drugs are the NSAIDs, including the selective COX-2 inhibitors. These drugs may cause renal dysfunction and elevated blood pressure, which in turn may precipitate heart failure in vulnerable individuals. Although NSAID-related cardiotoxicity is relatively rare and most commonly seen in elderly individuals with concomitant disease, the widespread long-term use of these drugs in risk groups is potentially hazardous. Pending comprehensive safety analyses, the use of NSAIDs in high-risk patients should be discouraged. In addition, there is an urgent need to resolve the safety issues related to the use of COX-2 inhibitors. As numerous drugs from various drug classes may precipitate or worsen heart failure, a detailed history of drug exposure in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure is mandatory.

Use of non-aspirin nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of cardiovascular events

OBJECTIVE

To review published evidence on the use of nonselective, non-aspirin nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NANSAIDs) and the risks of cardiovascular events and examine the justification for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in recommending that a cardiovascular risk warning statement be included in all NANSAIDs' product information inserts.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE (1966-August 2006) and Current Contents were identified using the key words NSAID, naproxen, ibuprofen, heart diseases, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular events. Citations from available articles and related FDA Web sites were reviewed for additional references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

No randomized, placebo-controlled studies have been published evaluating this subject. Epidemiologic evidence published in English was examined. Sixteen relevant studies were identified (5 cohort, 3 nested case-control, 8 case-control).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Six of the 16 studies demonstrated increased risk for one or more NANSAIDs (rate or ORs varied from 1.13 to 3.08). Five studies demonstrated cardioprotective effect for one or more NANSAIDs used (rate or ORs varied from 0.48 to 0.84). None of the other studies demonstrated an association between use of NANSAIDs and risk of cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment of baseline risk factors for cardiovascular events, epidemiologic studies demonstrated conflicting results regarding the risk of cardiovascular events with long-term use of nonselective NANSAIDs. However, considering the large number of patients consuming NANSAIDs and the potential public health impact, until data from long-term, randomized, controlled trials become available, the FDA's recommendation that a warning statement be included in all nonselective NANSAIDs product package inserts is justified.

Cardiovascular Risks of Cyclooxygenase Inhibition

Millions of patients use nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for relief of arthritic pain. Although NSAIDs reduce pain, their use has been linked to gastroduodenal complications. Selective inhibition of the cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme appeared to offer patients similar pain relief with an improved adverse-effect profile. However, accumulating experiences have raised concerns regarding the cardiovascular toxicities of the selective COX-2 inhibitors. Although selective COX inhibitors provide more gastrointestinal protection than NSAIDs, the unbalanced inhibition of prostaglandins may promote cardiovascular complications. Variability in study designs and inconsistency in results have made the evaluation of NSAID and COX-2 inhibitor safety very difficult, creating confusion among health care practitioners. We examine the pharmacologic and clinical evidence that defines the cardiovascular risk associated with COX inhibition.

Use of First- and Second-Generation Cyclooxygenase-2–Selective Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular safety of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has come under scrutiny after the withdrawal of rofecoxib and halting of the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib trial. Whether the newer second-generation COX-2 inhibitors (etoricoxib, valdecoxib) also increase the cardiovascular risk is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a nested case-control study in a cohort of 486,378 persons registered within the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database with at least 1 prescription of an NSAID between June 1, 2000, and October 31, 2004. A total of 3643 cases with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were matched to 13,918 controls on age, sex, year of cohort entry, and general practice. Rate ratios (RRs) of AMI associated with use of COX-2-selective and -nonselective NSAIDs were calculated. Current use of etoricoxib was associated with a 2.09-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 3.97) risk of AMI compared with no use of NSAIDs during the prior year. Current use of rofecoxib (RR=1.29; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.63), celecoxib (RR=1.56; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.00), and diclofenac (RR=1.37; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.59) also significantly increased the AMI risk. For current use of valdecoxib, the RR was 4.60 (95% CI, 0.61 to 34.51). RRs appeared to increase with higher daily doses of COX-2 inhibitors and were also increased in patients without major cardiovascular risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the hypothesis that the elevated risk of AMI is a class effect of COX-2 inhibitors. The increase in risk appears to be dose dependent, but further data are needed to verify this observation.

Cardiovascular risk with cyclooxygenase inhibitors: general problem with substance specific differences?

Randomised clinical trials and observational studies have shown an increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension and heart failure during treatment with cyclooxygenase inhibitors. Adverse cardiovascular effects occurred mainly, but not exclusively, in patients with concomitant risk factors. Cyclooxygenase inhibitors cause complex changes in renal, vascular and cardiac prostanoid profiles thereby increasing vascular resistance and fluid retention. The incidence of cardiovascular adverse events tends to increase with the daily dose and total exposure time. A comparison of individual selective and unselective cyclooxygenase inhibitors suggests substance-specific differences, which may depend on differences in pharmacokinetic parameters or inhibitory potency and may be contributed by prostaglandin-independent effects. Diagnostic markers such as N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or high-sensitive C-reactive protein might help in the early identification of patients at risk, thus avoiding the occurrence of serious cardiovascular toxicity.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and the risk of cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

Although randomized trials of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors have shown increased cardiovascular risk, studies of nonselective, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen have been inconsistent.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the influence of NSAIDs and acetaminophen on the risk of major cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal and fatal stroke) in a prospective cohort of 70,971 women, aged 44 to 69 years at baseline, free of known cardiovascular disease or cancer, who provided medication data biennially since 1990. During 12 years of follow-up, we confirmed 2041 major cardiovascular events. Women who reported occasional (1 to 21 d/mo) use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen did not experience a significant increase in the risk of cardiovascular events. However, after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, women who frequently (> or =22 d/mo) used NSAIDs had a relative risk (RR) for a cardiovascular event of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.65) compared with nonusers, whereas those who frequently consumed acetaminophen had a RR of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.14 to 1.59). The elevated risk associated with frequent NSAID use was particularly evident among current smokers (RR=1.82; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.42) and was absent among never smokers (Pinteraction=0.02). Moreover, we observed significant dose-response relations: Compared with nonusers, the RRs for a cardiovascular event among women who used > or =15 tablets per week were 1.86 (95% CI, 1.27 to 2.73) for NSAIDs and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.10 to 2.58) for acetaminophen.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen at high frequency or dose is associated with a significantly increased risk for major cardiovascular events, although more moderate use did not confer substantial risk.

Non-Steroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Whether non-aspirin non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) affect the risk of myocardial infarction is unclear. Also, it is unknown whether the effect varies by individual NSAIDs. To summarize the evidence from published observational studies on the risk of myocardial infarction associated with both traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2 (Coxibs), the authors conducted a systematic review of cohort and case-control studies on NSAIDs and myocardial infarction published between 2000 and 2005. Sixteen original studies were selected according to predefined criteria. Two researchers independently extracted the data on individual study characteristics and results. The authors calculated pooled relative risk (RR) estimates of myocardial infarction for specific NSAIDs compared with no NSAID use, tested the heterogeneity of effects, and evaluated potential reasons for heterogeneity. The pooled RR of myocardial infarction was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.05) for naproxen, 1.07 (95% CI: 1.02-1.12) for ibuprofen, 1.44 (95% CI: 1.32-1.56) for diclofenac, 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-1.02) for celecoxib, and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.17-1.36) for rofecoxib (all doses). The pooled RR for rofecoxib at doses >25 mg/day was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.36-2.34), and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.07-1.31) for doses < or =25 mg/day. The RR associated with naproxen was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.72-0.90) among non-users of low-dose aspirin. The RR associated with rofecoxib (all doses) was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.25-1.54) among subjects without a history of myocardial infarction. The risk of myocardial infarction varies with individual NSAIDs. An increased risk was observed for diclofenac and rofecoxib, the latter one with a clear dose-response trend. There was a suggestion of a small increased risk with ibuprofen. Also, data suggest a small reduced risk for naproxen present only in non-users of aspirin, mainly people free of clinically apparent vascular disease.

Risk of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of an adverse upper gastrointestinal event in patients taking different cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors compared with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

DESIGN

Nested case-control study.

SETTING

367 general practices contributing to the UK QRESEARCH database, spread throughout every strategic health authority and each health board in England, Wales, and Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 25 or more with a first ever diagnosis of an adverse upper gastrointestinal event (peptic ulcer or haematemesis) between 1 August 2000 and 31 July 2004 and up to 10 controls per case matched for age, sex, calendar time, and practice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for adverse upper gastrointestinal events associated with celecoxib, rofecoxib, ibuprofen, diclofenac, naproxen, other selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and aspirin.

RESULTS

The incidence of adverse upper gastrointestinal events was 1.36 per 1000 person years (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 1.39). We identified 9407 incident cases and 88 867 matched controls. Increased risks of adverse gastrointestinal events were associated with current use of cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and with conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Risks were reduced after adjustment for confounders but remained significantly increased for naproxen (adjusted odds ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 2.58), diclofenac (1.96, 1.78 to 2.15), and rofecoxib (1.56, 1.30 to 1.87) but not for current use of celecoxib (1.11, 0.87 to 1.41). We found clinically important interactions with current use of ulcer healing drugs that removed the increased risks for adverse gastrointestinal events for all groups of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs except diclofenac, which still had an increased odds ratio (1.49, 1.26 to 1.76).

CONCLUSION

No consistent evidence was found of enhanced safety against gastrointestinal events with any of the new cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors compared with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The use of ulcer healing drugs reduced the increased risk of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes with all groups of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but for diclofenac the increased risk remained significant.

Potential limitations of electronic database studies of prescription non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NANSAIDs) and risk of myocardial infarction (MI)

PURPOSE

To determine whether specific limitations in electronic database studies may lead to biased estimates of the association between prescription, non-selective non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NANSAIDs) and myocardial infarction (MI) METHODS: Using our case-control study of NANSAIDs and first, non-fatal MI, we determined the odds ratio (OR) for prescription NANSAIDs and MI. In the 'Replicating Electronic Database Analysis,' we considered non-prescription NANSAID users to be 'non-users,' did not stratify by aspirin use, and did not adjust for confounders typically unavailable or incomplete in existing databases. In the 'Misclassification Assessment Analysis,' we removed non-prescription NANSAIDs from the 'non-user' category. In the 'Confounding Assessment Analysis #1,' we additionally adjusted for smoking, family history, and years of education. In the 'Confounding Assessment Analysis #2,' we also adjusted for body mass index (BMI) and physical activity. In the 'Interaction Assessment Analysis,' we stratified on aspirin use and repeated the latter analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of current NANSAID and aspirin use was higher in our controls than in electronic database studies, consistent with the fact that non-prescription NANSAIDs accounted for 81% of all NANSAID use. Education, physical activity, and BMI also were associated with prescription NANSAID use. When each potential source of bias was removed, the OR for NANSAIDs moved further from 1.0 (i.e., toward a protective association with MI): 'Replicating Electronic Database' analysis (OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78--1.28); 'Misclassification Assessment Analysis' (OR 0.89, 95%CI: 0.70--1.14); 'Confounding Assessment Analysis #1' (OR 0.85, 95%CI: 0.66--1.10); 'Confounding Assessment Analysis #2' (OR 0.78, 95%CI: 0.60--1.01); 'Interaction Assessment Analysis' (OR 0.69, 95%CI: 0.51--0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations in electronic databases may be responsible for the lack of association of NANSAIDs on lower MI risk noted in these studies. Further studies-preferably randomized trials-are needed to address the risk-benefit ratio of NANSAID use.

Current use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of acute myocardial infarction

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of acute myocardial infarction during current exposure to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

DESIGN

Retrospective case-control analysis.

SETTING

General practice offices.

SUBJECTS

A total of 8688 case patients, aged 89 years or younger, with a first-time acute myocardial infarction and 33,923 control subjects matched on age, sex, calendar time, and general practice attended.

INTERVENTION

The United Kingdom General Practice Research Database was searched for potential cases of first-time acute myocardial infarction between January 1995 and April 2001. Control subjects without acute myocardial infarction were identified at random.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Exposure to NSAIDs was assessed, and 650 case patients and 2339 control subjects were found to be currently taking NSAIDs. After adjusting for various risk factors for acute myocardial infarction (e.g., hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, body mass index, smoking), the relative risk (expressed as odds ratio [OR]) of acute myocardial infarction was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.19) for subjects with current NSAID exposure compared with those not taking NSAIDs. The adjusted OR for current diclofenac use was 1.23 (95% CI 1.00-1.51), for current ibuprofen use 1.16 (95% CI 0.92-1.46), and for current naproxen use 0.96 (95% CI 0.66-1.38) compared with those not taking NSAIDs. Current aspirin use combined with current NSAID use was associated with a statistically significant risk reduction (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.97), compared with nonuse of NSAIDs and aspirin. Current use of aspirin together with current use of ibuprofen yielded an adjusted OR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.42-1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide additional evidence that the risk of first-time acute myocardial infarction during current use of NSAIDs is not materially altered. We found no evidence for a reduced cardioprotective effect of aspirin with concomitant NSAID use.

Risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis

AIMS

To determine the comparative risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in primary care between 2000 and 2004; to determine these risks in patients with and without pre-existing coronary heart disease and in those taking and not taking aspirin.

DESIGN

Nested case-control study.

SETTING

367 general practices contributing to the UK QRESEARCH database and spread throughout every strategic health authority and health board in England, Wales, and Scotland.

SUBJECTS

9218 cases with a first ever diagnosis of myocardial infarction during the four year study period; 86 349 controls matched for age, calendar year, sex, and practice.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib, celecoxib, naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, and other selective and non-selective NSAIDS. Odds ratios were adjusted for smoking status, comorbidity, deprivation, and use of statins, aspirin, and antidepressants.

RESULTS

A significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction was associated with current use of rofecoxib (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.61) compared with no use within the previous three years; with current use of diclofenac (1.55, 1.39 to 1.72); and with current use of ibuprofen (1.24, 1.11 to 1.39). Increased risks were associated with the other selective NSAIDs, with naproxen, and with non-selective NSAIDs; these risks were significant at < 0.05 rather than < 0.01 for current use but significant at < 0.01 in the tests for trend. No significant interactions occurred between any of the NSAIDs and either aspirin or coronary heart disease.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest an increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with current use of rofecoxib, diclofenac, and ibuprofen despite adjustment for many potential confounders. No evidence was found to support a reduction in risk of myocardial infarction associated with current use of naproxen. This is an observational study and may be subject to residual confounding that cannot be fully corrected for. However, enough concerns may exist to warrant a reconsideration of the cardiovascular safety of all NSAIDs.

Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitor rofecoxib was recently withdrawn because of cardiovascular adverse effects. An increased risk of myocardial infarction had been observed in 2000 in the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research study (VIGOR), but was attributed to cardioprotection of naproxen rather than a cardiotoxic effect of rofecoxib. We used standard and cumulative random-effects meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies to establish whether robust evidence on the adverse effects of rofecoxib was available before September, 2004.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases and relevant files of the US Food and Drug Administration. We included all randomised controlled trials in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders that compared rofecoxib with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or placebo, and cohort and case-control studies of cardiovascular risk and naproxen. Myocardial infarction was the primary endpoint.

FINDINGS

We identified 18 randomised controlled trials and 11 observational studies. By the end of 2000 (52 myocardial infarctions, 20742 patients) the relative risk from randomised controlled trials was 2.30 (95% CI 1.22-4.33, p=0.010), and 1 year later (64 events, 21432 patients) it was 2.24 (1.24-4.02, p=0.007). There was little evidence that the relative risk differed depending on the control group (placebo, non-naproxen NSAID, or naproxen; p=0.41) or trial duration (p=0.82). In observational studies, the cardioprotective effect of naproxen was small (combined estimate 0.86 [95% CI 0.75-0.99]) and could not have explained the findings of the VIGOR trial.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that rofecoxib should have been withdrawn several years earlier. The reasons why manufacturer and drug licensing authorities did not continuously monitor and summarise the accumulating evidence need to be clarified.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction in the general population

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are reversible inhibitors of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2. Whether transient and incomplete COX-1 inhibition with NSAIDs other than aspirin will translate into clinical cardioprotection is unclear. Some reports suggest that concurrent aspirin and ibuprofen might be associated with lower cardioprotection than aspirin alone because of a pharmacodynamic interaction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a cohort study with a nested case-control analysis. Overall, 4975 cases of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and death from coronary heart disease (CHD) were identified (January 1997 to December 2000) in the UK. A total of 20,000 controls were randomly sampled, and frequency was matched to cases by age, sex, and calendar year. The incidence rate was 5.0 per 1000 person-years. The multivariate-adjusted OR for current NSAID use compared with nonuse was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20). Treatment duration or daily dose did not change the results. The effect was similar among patients free of CHD history (1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.20) and patients with previous history (1.12; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.38). Estimates for individual NSAIDs were all comparable, with no major effect on the risk of acute MI. Naproxen was associated with an OR of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.24). The OR of aspirin and concurrent NSAIDs use was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.37) compared with aspirin alone. We observed the same result when analyzing ibuprofen and aspirin taken concomitantly.

CONCLUSIONS

This study could not demonstrate any detectable risk reduction of NSAIDs on the occurrence of MI. Our results do not support the existence of a clinically meaningful interaction between aspirin and NSAIDs, including ibuprofen.

Effect of rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus on the risk of first-time acute myocardial infarction

We explored the association between diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the risk of developing a first-time acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by conducting a population-based, case-control analysis using data from the United Kingdom-based General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Among 8,688 patients with AMI and 33,329 matched controls, the adjusted odds ratio (ORs) of AMI for subjects with RA was 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 1.76), and in subjects with both RA and diagnosed hyperlipidemia, the OR was 7.12 (95% CI 4.16 to 12.18). The risk associated with SLE was 2.67 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.34). These results underline that RA and SLE increase the risk of AMI.

Current Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that increased platelet activation increases the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with depression. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may attenuate platelet activation by serotonin depletion in platelets. Observational studies have shown discrepant results of AMI risk associated with the use of SSRIs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of exposure to different groups of antidepressants, including SSRIs, and the risk of AMI. The study also assessed in more detail the influence of timing of the exposure to antidepressants in a general adult population (<90 years of age), with or without diagnosed risk factors for AMI.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

We conducted a population-based case-control analysis on the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The study included 8688 patients (<90 years of age), with a first-time AMI between 1995 and 2001, and 33 923 controls, who were matched by age, sex, calendar time, and general practice. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Current use of an antidepressant was defined as a supply of the last prescription for an antidepressant that lasted up to the index date or beyond. Recent past use was defined as a supply of the last prescription for an antidepressant that ended 1-29 days before the index date. SSRIs investigated were citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine. Non-SSRIs investigated were amitriptyline, clomipramine, dosulepin, doxepin, imipramine, lofepramine, nefazodone, trazodone and trimipramine. Other antidepressants included were amoxapine, desipramine, lithium, maprotiline, mianserin, moclobemide, nortriptyline and protriptyline. Adjusted ORs (with 95% CI) for the current use of SSRIs, non-SSRIs, or other antidepressants, compared with non-use of antidepressants, were 0.63 (95% CI 0.43, 0.91; p=0.02), 0.92 (95% CI 0.77, 1.09; p=0.32) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.29, 1.20; p=0.14), respectively. The adjusted OR of recent past use of SSRIs compared with non-use of SSRIs was 1.42 (95% CI 1.02, 1.97; p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The present analysis provides further evidence that the current use of SSRIs is associated with a slightly decreased risk for AMI.