COX-2 Inhibitor and Non-Selective NSAID Use in Those at Increased Risk of NSAID-Related Adverse Events

Drugs & Aging ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svetla Gadzhanova ◽  
Jenni Ilomäki ◽  
Elizabeth E. Roughead
The Clinician ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 91-99
Author(s):  
N. A. Shostak ◽  
A. A. Klimenko ◽  
N. A. Demidova ◽  
D. A. Anichkov

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most commonly used pain relievers. However, their use often threatens with serious undesirable effects, associated mainly with damage to cardiovascular system (CVS), gastrointestinal tract, kidneys and liver. Contraindications to NSAIDs prescription are clearly regulated, algorithms for their personalized appointment are determined taking into account risk factors for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events. The severity of NSAIDs side effects is mainly due to the selectivity to cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), as well as the physicochemical properties of various drugs. Cardiovascular adverse events differ among various NSAIDs both within commonly used drugs and among COX-2 inhibitors. It is well known that NSAIDs selective for COX-2 are safer in terms of the effect on the gastrointestinal tract than non-selective drugs. A meta-analysis showed that relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors (meloxicam, etodolac) were associated with a comparable risk of developing symptomatic ulcers and ulcers identified by endoscopy, and safety and tolerability profiles of the drugs were similar.All NSAIDs are associated with cardiovascular toxicity, however, different drugs have significant risk differences. The mechanism of NSAIDs cardiovascular adverse effects is associated with an increase of blood pressure, sodium retention, vasoconstriction, platelet activation, and prothrombotic state. It has been shown that the risk of cardiovascular adverse events when taking COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib, etoricoxib) significantly increases. According to a study of more than 8 million people, it was found that the risk of myocardial infarction was increased in patients taking ketorolac. Further, highest to lowest risk authors list indomethacin, etoricoxib, rofecoxib (not currently used), diclofenac, a fixed combination of diclofenac with misoprostol, piroxicam, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, meloxicam, nimesulide and ketoprofen. When taking NSAIDs, the risk of heart failure decompensation increases, and it turned out to be the greatest for ketorolac, etoricoxib, and indomethacin. Meloxicam, aceclofenac, ketoprofen almost did not increase heart failure risk. It should be noted that when using the drugs (except for indomethacin and meloxicam), there is a tendency to increase the total cardiovascular and renal risks with increasing doses. Thus, it is obvious that a very careful approach is required when choosing NSAIDs. If there is an increased risk of gastrointestinal complications associated with NSAIDs, selective NSAIDs are preferred, with both coxibs and traditional selective NSAIDs showing the best safety profile in the studies. To minimize cardiovascular side effects specialists should consider the risk level of cardiovascular complications, as well as results of large clinical studies where particular NSAIDs are compared.


Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad A Sherbini ◽  
James M Gwinnutt ◽  
Kimme L Hyrich ◽  
Suzanne M M Verstappen ◽  

Abstract Background/Aims  Methotrexate (MTX) is the most common treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) associated with MTX treatment for RA have been studied extensively, but there are limited data on the predictors of these AEs. This study aims to summarise the prevalence rates of MTX AEs, including gastrointestinal (GI), neurological, mucocutaneous, and elevated alanine transaminase (ALT) enzyme, and to identify baseline demographic and clinical predictors of these AEs. Methods  The Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS) is a UK multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients with RA starting MTX for the first time. Relevant demographic, medication, clinical and disease related data were collected at baseline. AEs were reported at six and twelve months follow-ups. The prevalence rates of AEs were calculated based on the proportions of patients who reported having had an AE within one year of follow-up. The associations between candidate baseline predictors and AEs were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results  A total of 2,089 patients were included with a mean age of 58.4 (standard deviation: 13.5) years, 1390 (66.5%) were women. 1,814 and 1,579 patients completed the 6 and 12 months follow-up visits, respectively. The prevalence rates of the AEs within one year of follow-up were: GI = 777 (40.6%), mucocutaneous = 441 (23.1%), neurological = 487 (25.5%), elevated ALT (> upper limit of normal [ULN]) = 286 (15.5%). Younger age and being a woman were associated with increased risk of GI AEs, (age: OR 0.97 per year increase in age, 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; male sex: OR 0.58 vs female, 95% CI 0.46, 0.74) (Table 1). Higher baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score was an independent predictor of GI, mucocutaneous, and neurological AEs. Furthermore, having ALT >1xULN at baseline or history of diabetes was associated with increased risk of subsequent ALT elevation during the study follow-up. Conclusion  In patients with RA starting MTX, GI AEs were the most commonly reported AEs during the first year of follow-up. The identified predictors of AEs may facilitate discussions between clinicians and patients prior to commencing MTX, and may lead to increased adherence and consequently improved effectiveness. Disclosure  A.A. Sherbini: None. J.M. Gwinnutt: Grants/research support; BMS. K.L. Hyrich: Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbvie. Grants/research support; Pfizer, UCB, BMS. S.M.M. Verstappen: Consultancies; Celltrion. Member of speakers’ bureau; Pfizer. Grants/research support; BMS.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 54.1-54
Author(s):  
S. Benamar ◽  
C. Lukas ◽  
C. Daien ◽  
C. Gaujoux-Viala ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
...  

Background:Polypharmacy is steadily increasing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They may interfere with treatment response and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Medications taken by a patient may reflect active comorbidities, whereas comorbidity indices usually used include past or current diseases.Objectives:To evaluate whether polypharmarcy is associated with treatment response and adverse events in an early RA cohort and to establish whether polypharmacy could represent a substitute of comorbidities.Methods:We used data from the French cohort ESPOIR, including 813 patients with early onset arthritis. Patients included the current study had to start their first disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) within 24 months of inclusion in the cohort. Disease activity data were collected at one, five and ten years from the initiation of the first DMARD. For each patient, treatments were collected at baseline and at five years. Medications count included all specialties other than background RA therapy, analgesics/NSAIDs and topicals. Polypharmacy was defined as a categorical variable based on the median and tertiles of distribution in the cohort. Treatment response was assessed by achieving DAS28 ESR remission (REM) at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from the initiation of the first DMARD. The occurrence of severe adverse events (SAE) was measured by the occurrence of severe infection, hospitalization, or death during the 10-year follow-up. The association between patient’s characteristics and achievement of REM and occurrence of SAE were tested in univariate analysis. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate associations between polypharmacy and REM at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years (we used baseline polypharmacy for the 1-year analysis and five years polypharmacy for the 5- and 10-years analyses). Multivariate adjustment was made for age, sex, BMI, duration of disease, initial DAS28 ESR, initial HAQ, smoking status, rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI).Results:The proportion of patients who achieved REM one year after the initiation of the first DMARD was 32.1% in the polypharmacy according to the median group (patients taken ≥2 medication) versus 67.9% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.07). At 5 years after the first DMARD, the proportion of patients with REM was 45.0% in the polypharmacy group versus 56.3% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.03). At 10 years the proportion of patients with REM was 32.5% in the polypharmacy group versus 67.5% (p=0.06). Patients who take greater or equal to 2 medications had a 40% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.60 [0.38-0.94] p = 0.03) at 5 years from the first DMARD (if RDCI index was not included in the model). At 10 years, patients receiving multiple medications had a 43% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.57 [0.34-0.94] p = 0.02). SAE incidence was 61 per 1000 patient-years. For patients who developed SAE all causes 71.4% where in the polypharmacy group versus 57.8% were in the non-polypharmacy group (p = 0.03; univariate analysis). These results are no longer significant after adjustment for comorbidities indices.Conclusion:In this early RA cohort, polypharmacy is associated with a poorer treatment response and increased risk of adverse events. Polypharmacy may represent a good substitute of comorbidities for epidemiological studies.Acknowledgements:We are grateful to Nathalie Rincheval (Montpellier) who did expert monitoring and data management and all theinvestigators who recruited and followed the patients (F. Berenbaum, Paris-Saint Antoine; MC. Boissier, Paris-Bobigny; A. Cantagrel, Toulouse; B. Combe, Montpellier; M. Dougados, Paris-Cochin; P. Fardellone and P. Boumier, Amiens; B. Fautrel, Paris-La Pitié; RM. Flipo, Lille; Ph. Goupille, Tours; F. Liote, Paris- Lariboisière; O. Vittecoq, Rouen; X. Mariette, Paris-Bicêtre; P. Dieude, Paris Bichat; A. Saraux, Brest; T. Schaeverbeke, Bordeaux; and J. Sibilia, Strasbourg).The work reported on in the manuscript did not benefit from any financial support. The ESPOIR cohort is sponsored by the French Society for Rheumatology. An unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) was allocated for the first 5 years. Two additional grants from INSERM were obtained to support part of the biological database. Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly and more recently Fresenius and Biogen also supported the ESPOIR cohort.Disclosure of Interests:Soraya Benamar: None declared, Cédric Lukas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis and Roche-Chugai, Claire Daien Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Anne-Christine Rat Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai., Jacques Morel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Alyson R. Pierick ◽  
Melodie Lynn ◽  
Courtney M. McCracken ◽  
Matthew E. Oster ◽  
Glen J. Iannucci

Abstract Introduction: The prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the general population is common and is now diagnosed in 4%–12% of children. Children with CHD have been shown to be at increased risk for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Case reports have led to concern regarding the use of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications in children with underlying CHD. We hypothesised that medical therapy for patients with CHD and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is safe. Methods: A single-centre, retrospective chart review was performed evaluating for adverse events in patients aged 4–21 years with CHD who received attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder therapy over a 5-year span. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of CHD and concomitant medical therapy with amphetamines, methylphenidate, or atomoxetine. Patients with trivial or spontaneously resolved CHD were excluded from analysis. Results: In 831 patients with CHD who received stimulants with a mean age of 12.9 years, there was only one adverse cardiovascular event identified. Using sensitivity analysis, our median follow-up time was 686 days and a prevalence rate of 0.21% of adverse events. This episode consisted of increased frequency of supraventricular tachycardia in a patient who had this condition prior to initiation of medical therapy; the condition improved with discontinuation of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder therapy. Conclusion: The incidence of significant adverse cardiovascular events in our population was similar to the prevalence of supraventricular tachycardia in the general population. Our single-centre experience demonstrated no increased risk in adverse events related to medical therapy for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and underlying CHD. Further population-based studies are indicated to validate these findings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1869.2-1870
Author(s):  
G. Figueroa-Parra ◽  
A. Moreno-Salinas ◽  
L. Santoyo-Fexas ◽  
C. M. Gamboa-Alonso ◽  
A. L. De-Leon-Ibarra ◽  
...  

Background:Patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) are at increased risk of infections, attributed to the underlying RD, comorbidities and immunosuppressive therapy, including glucocorticoids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, etc. (1). While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal (2). Despite being recognized as one of the most successful public health measures, vaccination is perceived as unsafe and unnecessary by a growing number of individuals. Lack of confidence in vaccines is now considered a threat to the success of vaccination programs (3).Objectives:To describe the main causes of non-vaccination in patients with RD.Methods:A self-questionnaire was applied to a sample of patients with RD in the rheumatology clinic of the university hospital “Dr. Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez” in Monterrey, Mexico between September and December 2019. The questionnaire evaluated demographic characteristics (age, gender, diagnosis) and the vaccination status for Influenza (last year), pneumococcal (last 5 years), Herpes zoster (ever), Human papillomavirus (any dose) and Hepatitis B (any dose). It also includes a question asking: If you didn’t receive any of the previous vaccines, what was the reason? (multiple-choice are shown in Table 2). Results are shown in frequencies and percentages.Table 2.Vaccination barriersN=82If you didn’t receive any of the previous vaccines,what was the reason? n (%)1)Did not was recommended22 (26.8)2) Lack of availability21 (25.6)3) Vaccines don’t work13 (15.8)4) Fear of adverse events8 (9.7)5) Previous adverse event3 (3.6)6) Other reason- Own decision8 (9.7)- Disinformation7 (8.5)Results:102 patients were evaluated: Mean age was 51.27 (SD 14.68) years; 84 (82.4%) were females; 71 (69.6%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 13 (12.7%) had systemic lupus erythematosus, 6 (5.8%) had other autoimmune diseases and 12 (11.8%) had osteoarthritis. The rate of vaccination for Influenza was 49 (48%), for pneumococcal 25 (24.5%), for Herpes zoster 5 (4.9%), for Human papillomavirus 9 (8.8%), for Hepatitis B 14 (13.7%) (Table 1). 82 (80.3%) patients reported some barriers in vaccination, from these: 22 (26.8%) did not get the recommendation from the rheumatologist, 21 (25.6%) did not found available the vaccine, 13 (15.8%) believes that vaccines don’t work, 8 (9.7%) had fear of adverse events, 3 (3.6%) reported previous adverse events, and 15 (18.2%) reported other reasons, that we classified as own decision 8 (9.7%) and disinformation 7 (8.5%) (Table 2).Table 1.Demographic characteristicsN= 102Age, years, mean (SD)51.27 (14.68)Female, n (%)84 (82.4)Diagnosis, n (%)-RA71 (69.6)-SLE13 (12.7)-OA12 (11.8)-Other AID6 (5.8)Conclusion:The main barriers in vaccination of rheumatic patients reported were the lack of availability of the indicated vaccines and the medical and patient disinformation. This problem must be combated to ensure the complete vaccination of rheumatic patients.References:[1]Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:39-52.[2]J Rheumatol. 2019;46(7):751-754[3]Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(8):1763-73.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 132-132
Author(s):  
Liliana P. Ferreira ◽  
Núria Santos ◽  
Nuno Fernandes ◽  
Carla Ferreira

Objectives: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and it is associated with increased mortality. The use of antipsychotics is common among the elderly, especially in those with dementia. Evidence suggests an increased risk of mortality associated with antipsychotic use. Despite the short-term benefit of antipsychotic treatment to reduce the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, it increases the risk of mortality in patients with AD. Our aim is to discuss the findings from the literature about risk of mortality associated with the use of antipsychotics in AD.Methods: We searched Internet databases indexed at MEDLINE using following MeSH terms: "Antipsychotic Agents" AND "Alzheimer Disease" OR "Dementia" AND "Mortality" and selected articles published in the last 5 years.Results: Antipsychotics are widely used in the pharmacological treatment of agitation and aggression in elderly patients with AD, but their benefit is limited. Serious adverse events associated with antipsychotics include increased risk of death. The risk of mortality is associated with both typical and atypical antipsychotics. Antipsychotic polypharmacy is associated with a higher mortality risk than monotherapy and should be avoided. The mortality risk increases after the first few days of treatment, gradually reducing but continues to increase after two years of treatment. Haloperidol is associated with a higher mortality risk and quetiapine with a lower risk than risperidone.Conclusions: If the use of antipsychotics is considered necessary, the lowest effective dose should be chosen and the duration should be limited because the mortality risk remains high with long-term use. The risk / benefit should be considered when choosing the antipsychotic. Further studies on the efficacy and risk of adverse events with antipsychotics are needed for a better choice of treatment and adequate monitoring with risk reduction.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Stang ◽  
Lisa Morris ◽  
Judy Kempf ◽  
Scott Henderson ◽  
Marianne Ulcickas Yood ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 1457-1467 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Zammit ◽  
D. Odd ◽  
J. Horwood ◽  
A. Thompson ◽  
K. Thomas ◽  
...  

BackgroundNon-clinical psychosis-like symptoms (PLIKS) occur in about 15% of the population. It is not clear whether adverse events during early development alter the risk of developing PLIKS. We aimed to examine whether maternal infection, diabetes or pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, gestational age, perinatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation or 5-min Apgar score were associated with development of psychotic symptoms during early adolescence.MethodA longitudinal study of 6356 12-year-old adolescents who completed a semi-structured interview for psychotic symptoms in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) birth cohort. Prenatal and perinatal data were obtained from obstetric records and maternal questionnaires completed during pregnancy.ResultsThe presence of definite psychotic symptoms was associated with maternal infection during pregnancy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.86, p=0.006], maternal diabetes (adjusted OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.14–10.36, p=0.029), need for resuscitation (adjusted OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97–2.31, p=0.065) and 5-min Apgar score (adjusted OR per unit decrease 1.30, 95% CI 1.12–1.50, p<0.001). None of these associations were mediated by childhood IQ score. Most associations persisted, but were less strong, when including suspected symptoms as part of the outcome. There was no association between PLIKS and gestational age or pre-eclampsia.ConclusionsAdverse events during early development may lead to an increased risk of developing PLIKS. Although the status of PLIKS in relation to clinical disorders such as schizophrenia is not clear, the similarity between these results and findings reported for schizophrenia indicates that future studies of PLIKS may help us to understand how psychotic experiences and clinical disorders develop throughout the life-course.


2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 597-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel SB Rawson ◽  
Parivash Nourjah ◽  
Stella C Grosser ◽  
David J Graham

BACKGROUND: The cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) celecoxib and rofecoxib (before its removal) are marketed as having fewer gastrointestinal (GI)-related complications than nonselective NSAIDs. However, adverse reaction data suggest that the use of COX-2 selective NSAIDs is associated with clinically significant GI events. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients receiving celecoxib and rofecoxib have a greater underlying disease burden than patients prescribed nonselective NSAIDs. METHODS: The study population consisted of members of 11 health plans, aged >34 years, with a pharmacy claim for celecoxib or rofecoxib or a nonselective NSAID dispensed between February 1, 1999, and July 31, 2001, who had been continuously enrolled for >364 days before the dispensing date. Celecoxib and rofecoxib patients were randomly selected without replacement from a pool of eligible users in each of the 30 months. Nonselective NSAID users were randomly chosen without replacement within each month on a 2:1 ratio to cases; they could be chosen in more than one month. Univariate analyses comparing 9000 cases and 18 000 controls were performed, followed by a multiple logistic regression analysis conditioned on time. RESULTS: Increasing age, treatment by a rheumatologist or an orthopedic specialist, treatment with a high number of different medications in the past year, treatment with oral corticosteroids in the past year, and having had a previous GI bleed increased the likelihood of receiving celecoxib or rofecoxib, whereas treatment with a high number of nonselective NSAID prescriptions in the past year decreased it. Treatment with a high number of different medications was a predictor of increased prevalence of underlying diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients having a greater underlying disease burden were more likely to receive COX-2 selective NSAIDs than nonselective ones. Paradoxically, patients at higher risk for cardiovascular disease were channeled toward treatment with COX-2 selective NSAIDs, many of which may confer an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document