Identification of sulfonamide-like adverse drug reactions to celecoxib in the World Health Organization database

Cyclo-oxygenase selectivity and chemical groups of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the frequency of reporting hypersensitivity reactions: a case/noncase study in VigiBase

To date, no reports of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) among nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) according to cyclo-oxygenase (COX) selectivity and chemical groups have been published in a single study. The present study assessed the reporting frequency of HSRs for NSAIDs based on their relative inhibitory potency toward COX enzymes and chemical groups, including the presence/absence of a functional sulfonamide group, in strata observed 5 years after market authorization. A case/noncase study was performed among individual case safety reports (ICSRs) with NSAIDs as suspected drugs in VigiBase, the WHO spontaneous reporting database. Cases were ICSRs mentioning angioedema and anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock conditions, while noncases were ICSRs without HSRs. NSAIDs were categorized into (i) NSAIDs with high COX-2 selectivity (coxibs), (ii) noncoxib NSAIDs with COX-2 preference, (iii) NSAIDs with poor selectivity, or (iv) NSAIDs with unknown selectivity. Chemical groups were defined based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system and the presence/absence of a functional sulfonamide group. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using logistic regression analysis. We identified 13 229 cases and 106 444 noncases. In the first 5 years after marketing, poor-selectivity NSAIDs and acetic acid derivatives were associated with the highest ROR of HSRs (age- and sex-adjusted ROR 2.12, 95% CI 1.98-2.28; and ROR 2.21, 95% CI 1.83-2.66, respectively) compared with coxibs, and sulfonamide NSAIDs were associated with the highest ROR of HSRs compared with nonsulfonamide NSAIDs (age- and sex-adjusted ROR 1.38, 95% CI 1.29-1.47). After the first 5 years of marketing, most of the RORs returned to approximately 1.

Celecoxib-associated anaphylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To report and discuss a case of anaphylaxis in a young, healthy white male taking celecoxib for intermittent lower back pain.

CASE SUMMARY

A healthy 27-year-old man with a documented history of anaphylaxis to penicillins and macrolides presented to the emergency department (ED) in anaphylactic shock after ingesting a 200-mg capsule of celecoxib and a cup of orange juice. The patient had been taking celecoxib over the past 6 months, for 1-2 weeks at a time, for low back pain secondary to a pilonidal cyst and an L5/S1 bulging disc. The day of admission was the seventh day of the most recent course of twice-daily celecoxib. The patient initially self-treated the reaction with diphenhydramine and subcutaneous epinephrine that he had at home due to his history of drug- and bee sting-induced anaphylaxis; neither intervention improved his symptoms. He became profoundly diaphoretic and developed systemic swelling, shortness of breath, bradycardia, and hypotension. Emergency medical services transported the patient to the ED, where he was treated appropriately and the symptoms resolved. However, 4 hours later, at time of discharge from the ED, the symptoms recurred. He was admitted to the intensive care unit and monitored for 3 days. Supportive care, steroids, and histamine blockade provided resolution of the symptoms. Cardiac workup was initiated because of the recurrence and severity of bradycardia and hypotension; results of the workup were unremarkable. The patient was discharged in stable condition.

DISCUSSION

This case demonstrates rare anaphylaxis to celecoxib in a patient who had previously taken the drug and who had documented tolerance to sulfonamide antibiotics. Despite this history, our patient developed type V immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylaxis secondary to the sulfonamide component of celecoxib. This reaction was considered probable according to the Naranjo probability scale. A review of published case reports and related allergy literature for celecoxib allergenicity revealed that such reactions are rare. This is the first case report with great detail of a patient with anaphylaxis to celecoxib after having previously tolerated the medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib can produce an anaphylactic reaction in patients who have previously tolerated sulfonamide antibiotics and who have previously tolerated celecoxib. This case also reviews the potentially biphasic presentation of anaphylaxis. Clinicians need to be aware of this biphasic anaphylactic response to ensure optimal duration of evaluation.

Difference in risks of allergic reaction to sulfonamide drugs based on chemical structure

BACKGROUND

The chemical structure of sulfonamide antibiotics and sulfonamide nonantibiotics can affect the potential for adverse reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether differences in chemical structure of the various sulfonamide drugs influence the risk of allergic events.

METHODS

A case-control study was conducted among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) using data from the General Practice Research Database. Cases were defined as patients with a diagnosis of hypersensitivity or allergic reaction. The date of the last event was the index date. Controls were matched on practice, type of DM, and index date. Current use of sulfonamides was defined as use in a 14 day time window before the index date. Sulfonamides were classified according to the presence/absence of an N1 substituent (N1(+)/(-)) and/or an arylamine (N4(+)/(-)). Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate strength of association and expressed as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Overall, current use of N1(+) N4(+) sulfonamide drugs was associated with the outcome (adjusted OR 3.71; 95% CI 1.40 to 9.81). Current use of N1(+) N4(-) and N1(-) N4(-) sulfonamide drugs was also associated with the occurrence of allergic reactions, although not as strongly: adjusted OR 2.48 (95% CI 2.12 to 2.89) and 2.07 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.46), respectively. Sex and age seemed to be effect modifiers. There was no clear evidence for effect modification by immune disease state.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we did not identify major differences between the groups, we believe that this approach is an innovative manner to examine adverse drug reactions by using chemical structure instead of therapeutic drug classes to classify exposure.

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

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

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

Safety of etoricoxib, a new cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, in patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced urticaria and angioedema

BACKGROUND

The use of selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) has been shown to be safe in patients with aspirin-induced asthma. However, a few individuals with cutaneous reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) experience urticaria or angioedema when challenged with various coxibs.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical tolerance of NSAID-sensitive individuals to the selective COX-2 inhibitors etoricoxib and celecoxib.

METHODS

Patients with NSAID-induced urticaria or angioedema were challenged in a double-masked, placebo-controlled design protocol with etoricoxib (120 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg). Cutaneous, respiratory, and general symptoms; vital signs; and pulmonary function were monitored hourly for 3 hours.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients (46 females and 12 males) with a mean +/- SD age of 31.7 +/- 14.1 years (range, 13-66 years) who showed urticaria or angioedema when challenged with NSAIDs were included in this study. A cutaneous clinical pattern was observed in 34 patients (59%), and a mixed pattern (cutaneous and respiratory) was seen in 24 (41%). Celecoxib provocation of 54 patients induced urticaria in 3, urticaria and angioedema in 2, and urticaria, rhinorrhea, and conjunctival erythema in 1 (reaction rate, 11.1%). Etoricoxib challenges performed in 56 patients induced urticaria in 3 and angioedema in 1 (reaction rate, 7.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that most NSAID-sensitive individuals with cutaneous reactions to classic NSAIDs will tolerate specific COX-2 inhibitors, supporting the use of thesedrugs after careful oral provocation in such patients.

Safety of the new selective cyclooxygenase type 2 inhibitors rofecoxib and celecoxib in patients with anaphylactoid reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

Controlled oral challenge with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is the only definite way to detect safe NSAIDs in patients with NSAID-induced anaphylactoid reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of the selective cyclooxygenase (COX) type 2 inhibitors rofecoxib and celecoxib in patients with single-reactive, NSAID-induced anaphylactoid reactions.

METHODS

We prospectively conducted single-blind, placebo-controlled oral challenges (SBPCOCs) with rofecoxib and celecoxib in 33 patients with single-reactive, NSAID-induced anaphylactoid reactions.

RESULTS

Nineteen women and 14 men (age range, 20-78 years; mean age, 44.8 years) exhibited anaphylactoid reactions on emergency department admission. Symptoms involved the skin (100%), laryngeal edema (73%), systolic hypotension (39%), and the gastrointestinal system (15%). The NSAIDs most frequently involved in the episodes were dipyrone (64%), propyphenazone (12%), and diclofenac (12%). In all patients, tolerance to a potent, nondiscriminatory COX inhibitor (except those reported as being responsible for the reaction) was noted. The SBPCOCs with the selective COX-2 inhibitors celecoxib and rofecoxib were well tolerated in all cases. Twenty-three patients who had an anaphylactoid reaction involving dipyrone and propyphenazone showed good tolerance to celecoxib (which contains a pyrazole group in its structure) on challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

The SBPCOCs with highly selective COX-2 inhibitors were safe in patients with single-reactive, NSAID-induced anaphylactoid reactions, even in cases that involved pyrazole derivatives.

Adverse Reactions to Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors (Coxibs)

Coxibs, selective inhibitors of arachidonic acid cyclooxygenase-2, constitute a new, clinically useful therapeutic class of drugs that possess analgesic, antiinflammatory, and antipyretic properties. The drug inserts of prescription information presently provide a warning contraindicating their use in patients with aspirin-intolerant asthma and aspirin and NSAID hypersensitivity. However, according to investigations reported until now, most of those NSAID-sensitive individuals will tolerate coxibs. Careful oral challenge is useful for patient management since some cutaneous and systemic reactions of hypersensitivity, especially when sulfonamide-containing coxibs are employed, may occur.

Safety profile of celecoxib as used in general practice in England: results of a prescription-event monitoring study

AIMS

A post-marketing surveillance study using the technique of Prescription Event Monitoring was undertaken to monitor the safety of celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor, as prescribed in primary care in England.

METHODS

Patients were identified from dispensed British National Health Service prescription data supplied in confidence by the Prescription Pricing Authority for celecoxib between May and December 2000. Simple questionnaires were sent to the prescribing general practitioner at least 6 months after the date of the first dispensed prescription for each individual patient. Event incidence densities (IDs) [the number of 1st reports per 1000 patient-months of exposure (pme)] were calculated. ID differences for events reported in month 1 (ID1) and months 2-6 (ID2) were examined for temporal changes in event rate. Information on suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs), reasons for stopping treatment, outcome of pregnancies and cause of death were also requested. Data were gathered on potential gastrointestinal (GI) risk factors [recent use of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), past history of upper GI disorders and concomitant gastro-irritant agents or anti-ulcer drugs]. Crude IDs per 1000 pme and ID ratios were calculated according to potential risk factors, and age (> or = 65 years, < or = 64 years).

RESULTS

The cohort comprised of 17,458 patients [median age 62 years (IQR 51,73); 68.3% female]. The most common specified indication was osteoarthritis (28.1%, n = 4905). Not effective was the event with the highest ID1 (139.9 per 1000 pme). The clinical events with the highest ID1 were dyspepsia (25.4 per 1000 pme) followed by abdominal pain (10.6). These were also given frequently as reasons for stopping (551 and 174 of 9126 reports). Of 436 events in 325 patients (1.9% of total cohort) that were reported as ADRs, the most frequent were events within the alimentary system (186 reports). Uncommon events reported during treatment (not necessarily as ADRs) included allergy (0.10%, n = 17), anaphylaxis (0.01%, n = 2), angioneurotic oedema (0.02%, n = 3) and bronchospasm (0.05%, n = 9). There were 103 reports of events associated with thromboembolism and 111 reports of serious GI events [90 GI bleeds (upper and lower); 21 peptic ulcers] received during treatment or within 1 month of stopping. A past history of dyspeptic/other upper GI conditions and use of concomitant gastro-protective drugs were each associated with a significantly increased risk of dyspepsia and abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequently reported adverse events were those GI events commonly associated with treatment with other NSAIDS. Stratification by identified risk factors suggested that channelling of high-risk patients is likely. Serious upper and lower GI events, and thromboembolic events did occur during this study, although the incidence was low (< 1%). Doctors should continue to prescribe NSAIDs, including COX-2-specific inhibitors, with caution.

Safety of celecoxib in individuals allergic to sulfonamide: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cross reactivity between sulfonamide antimicrobials and celecoxib in patients with histories of allergies to sulfonamide antimicrobials.

METHODS

Immunocompetent patients with a history of sulfonamide antimicrobial allergy who were being considered for therapy with celecoxib were prospectively enrolled. Sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim skin prick and intradermal testing and/or an in vitro lymphocyte toxicity assay were performed. If skin testing was negative, an oral challenge with sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim was performed. Oral challenges with celecoxib were administered to all patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight immunocompetent patients (26 female; mean age 60 years) were evaluated. History of sulfonamide antimicrobial allergy included urticaria (n = 7), cutaneous eruptions (n = 9), and other (n = 12). Four of the 28 patients who were skin prick tested were positive to sulfamethoxazole and two of the ten patients who underwent in vitro testing were positive to sulfamethoxazole. All 28 patients were administered celecoxib and tolerated the medication. Phone call follow up in 25 patients disclosed that 15 patients continued to take celecoxib, while five patients did not take celecoxib following the oral challenge, and five discontinued celecoxib due to adverse effects, lack of drug efficacy or physician preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Confusion exists regarding the potential for cross reactivity between sulfonamide antimicrobials and other sulfonamide-containing compounds. The six sulfonamide-allergic patients tolerated celecoxib uneventfully. This pilot study supports the hypothesis that the potential for cross-reactivity between celecoxib and sulfonamide antimicrobials appears to be low. However, further investigations are required to confirm this.