Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies

English version České info

Background:
Randomised trials have highlighted the cardiovascular risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high doses and sometimes atypical settings. Here, we provide estimates of the comparative risks with individual NSAIDs at typical doses in community settings.

Methods and Findings:
We performed a systematic review of community-based controlled observational studies. We conducted comprehensive literature searches, extracted adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates, and pooled the estimates for major cardiovascular events associated with use of individual NSAIDs, in different doses, and in populations with low and high background risks of cardiovascular events. We also compared individual drugs in pair-wise (within study) analyses, generating ratios of RRs (RRRs). Thirty case-control studies included 184,946 cardiovascular events, and 21 cohort studies described outcomes in >2.7 million exposed individuals. Of the extensively studied drugs (ten or more studies), the highest overall risks were seen with rofecoxib, 1.45 (95% CI 1.33, 1.59), and diclofenac, 1.40 (1.27, 1.55), and the lowest with ibuprofen, 1.18 (1.11, 1.25), and naproxen, 1.09 (1.02, 1.16). In a sub-set of studies, risk was elevated with low doses of rofecoxib, 1.37 (1.20, 1.57), celecoxib, 1.26 (1.09, 1.47), and diclofenac, 1.22 (1.12, 1.33), and rose in each case with higher doses. Ibuprofen risk was seen only with higher doses. Naproxen was risk-neutral at all doses. Of the less studied drugs etoricoxib, 2.05 (1.45, 2.88), etodolac, 1.55 (1.28, 1.87), and indomethacin, 1.30 (1.19, 1.41), had the highest risks. In pair-wise comparisons, etoricoxib had a higher RR than ibuprofen, RRR = 1.68 (99% CI 1.14, 2.49), and naproxen, RRR = 1.75 (1.16, 2.64); etodolac was not significantly different from naproxen and ibuprofen. Naproxen had a significantly lower risk than ibuprofen, RRR = 0.92 (0.87, 0.99). RR estimates were constant with different background risks for cardiovascular disease and rose early in the course of treatment.

Conclusions:
This review suggests that among widely used NSAIDs, naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen are least likely to increase cardiovascular risk. Diclofenac in doses available without prescription elevates risk. The data for etoricoxib were sparse, but in pair-wise comparisons this drug had a significantly higher RR than naproxen or ibuprofen. Indomethacin is an older, rather toxic drug, and the evidence on cardiovascular risk casts doubt on its continued clinical use.

: Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies. PLoS Med 8(9): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. Catella-LawsonFMcAdamBMorrisonBWKapoorSKujubuD 1999 Effects of specific inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 on sodium balance, hemodynamics, and vasoactive eicosanoids. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 289 735 741

2. BombardierCLaineLReicinAShapiroDBurgos-VargasR 2000 Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 343 1520 1528

3. BertagnolliMEagleCJZauberAGRedstonMSolomonSD 2000 Celecoxib for the prevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med 355 873 884

4. Garcia RodriguezLAVaras-LorenzoCMaguireAGonzales-PerezA 2004 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction in the general population. Circulation 109 3000 3006

5. SchneeweissSGlynnRJKiyotaYLevinR Solomon DH 2004 Relationship between selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and acute myocardial infarction in older adults. Circulation 109 2068 2073

6. HenryDLimLLGarcía RodríguezLAPerez GutthannSCarsonJL 1996 Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ 312 1563 1566

7. McGettiganPHenryD 2006 Cardiovascular risk and inhibition of cylcooxygenase: a systematic review of the observational studies of selective and non-selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2. JAMA 296 1633 1644

8. FosbolELFolkeFGislasonGHJacobsenSRasamussenJN 2010 Cause-specific cardiovascular risk associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs among healthy individuals. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 3 395 405 doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.109.861104

9. KearneyPMBaigentCGodwinJHallsHEmbersonJR 2006 Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 332 1302 1308

10. TrelleSReichenbachSWandelSHildebrandPTschannenB 2011 Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis. BMJ 342 c7086 doi:10.1136/bmj.c7086

11. García RodríguezLAGonzález-PérezABuenoHHwaJ 2011 NSAID use selectively increases the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies. PLoS ONE 6 e16780 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016780

12. Hernández-DíazSVaras-LorenzoCGarcía RodríguezLA 2006 Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Basic Clin Pharmacol 98 266 274

13. Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit 2009 Coxib and traditional NSAID trialists’ (CNT) collaboration. Oxford: University of Oxford Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit. Available: http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/projects/cnt. Accessed 6 August 2011

14. WellsGASheaBO’ConnellDPetersonPWelchV 2010 The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 6 August 2011

15. AltmanDGBlandJM 2003 Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 326 219

16. HutchonDJR 2005 Calculations for comparing two estimated relative risks [computer program]. Available: http://www.hutchon.net/CompareRR.htm. Accessed 6 August 2011

17. Anonymous 2011 Etoricoxib. Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoricoxib. Accessed 6 August 2011

18. BarozziNTettSE 2007 What happened to the prescribing of other COX-2 inhibitors, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs when rofecoxib was withdrawn in Australia? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16 1184 1191

19. RubinBRBurtonRNavarraSAntiguaJLondoñoJ 2004 Efficacy and safety profile of treatment with etoricoxib 120 mg once daily compared with indomethacin 50 mg three times daily in acute gout: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 50 598 606

20. SchneeweissS 2006 Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 15 291 303

21. LévesqueLEBrophyJMZhangB 2006 Time variations in the risk of myocardial infarction among elderly users of COX-2 inhibitors. CMAJ 174 1563 1569 doi:10.1503/cmaj.051679

22. Helin-SalmivaaraAVirtanenAVesalainenRGronroosJMKlaukkaT 2006 NSAID use and the risk of hospitalization for first myocardial infarction in the general population: a nationwide case-control study from Finland. Eur Heart J 27 1657 1663

23. SolomonSDWittesJFinnPVFowlerRVinerJ 2008 Cardiovascular risk of celecoxib in 6 randomized placebo-controlled trials. Circulation 117 2104 2113

24. CaldwellBAldingtonSWeatherallMShirtcliffePBeasleyR 2006 Risk of cardiovascular events and celecoxib: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J R Soc Med 99 132 140

25. CannonCPCurtisSPFitzGeraldGAKrumHKaurA 2006 Cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison. Lancet 368 1771 1781

26. NussmeierNAWheltonAABrownMTLangfordRMHoeftA 2005 Implications of the COX-2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 352 1081 1091

27. LúcioMFerreiraHLimaJLReisS 2006 Interactions between oxicams and membrane bilayers: an explanation for their different COX selectivity. Med Chem 2 447 456

28. Anonymous 2011 Indomethacin: drug information provided by Lexi-Comp. The Merck Manual for Health Care Professionals. Available: http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/lexicomp/indomethacin.html. Accessed 6 August 2011

29. ThompsonMPercyJS 1966 Further experience with indomethacin in the treatment of rheumatic disorders. BMJ 1 80 83

30. HawkeyCKahanASteinbruckKAlegreCBaumelouE 1998 Gastrointestinal tolerability of meloxicam compared to diclofenac in osteoarthritis patients. Br J Rheumatol 37 937 945

31. OlsenAMSFosbolELLindhardsenJFolkeFCharlotM 2011 Duration of treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and impact on risk of death and recurrent myocardial infarction in patients with prior myocardial infarction: a nationwide cohort study. Circulation 123 2226 2235

32. KerrDJDunnJALangmanMJSmithJLMidgleyRSJ 2007 Rofecoxib and cardiovascular adverse events in adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357 360 369

33. GrosserTFriesSFitzgeraldGA 2006 Biological basis for the cardiovascular consequences of Cox 2 inhibition: therapeutic challenges and opportunities. J Clin Invest 116 4 15

34. MacDonaldTMMorantSVGoldsteinJLBurkeTAPettittD 2003 Channelling bias and the incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage in users of meloxicam, coxibs, and older, non-specific non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gut 52 1265 1270

35. GolderSLokeYKBlandM 2011 Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med 8 e10011026 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001026

36. Catella-LawsonFReillyMPKapoorSCCucchiaraAJDeMarcoS 2001 Cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors and the anti-platelet effect of aspirin. New Engl J Med 345 1809 1817