ContextConventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated
with a spectrum of toxic effects, notably gastrointestinal (GI) effects, because
of inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1. Whether COX-2–specific inhibitors
are associated with fewer clinical GI toxic effects is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether celecoxib, a COX-2–specific inhibitor, is
associated with a lower incidence of significant upper GI toxic effects and
other adverse effects compared with conventional NSAIDs.DesignThe Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS), a double-blind,
randomized controlled trial conducted from September 1998 to March 2000.SettingThree hundred eighty-six clinical sites in the United States and Canada.ParticipantsA total of 8059 patients (≥18 years old) with osteoarthritis (OA)
or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were enrolled in the study, and 7968 received
at least 1 dose of study drug. A total of 4573 patients (57%) received treatment
for 6 months.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, 400 mg twice per
day (2 and 4 times the maximum RA and OA dosages, respectively; n = 3987);
ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times per day (n = 1985); or diclofenac, 75 mg twice per
day (n = 1996). Aspirin use for cardiovascular prophylaxis (≤325 mg/d)
was permitted.Main Outcome MeasuresIncidence of prospectively defined symptomatic upper GI ulcers and ulcer
complications (bleeding, perforation, and obstruction) and other adverse effects
during the 6-month treatment period.ResultsFor all patients, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications
alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.76%
vs 1.45% (P = .09) and 2.08% vs 3.54% (P = .02), respectively. For patients not taking aspirin, the annualized
incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic
ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.44% vs 1.27% (P
= .04) and 1.40% vs 2.91% (P = .02). For patients
taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications
alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 2.01%
vs 2.12% (P = .92) and 4.70% vs 6.00% (P = .49). Fewer celecoxib-treated patients than NSAID-treated patients
experienced chronic GI blood loss, GI intolerance, hepatotoxicity, or renal
toxicity. No difference was noted in the incidence of cardiovascular events
between celecoxib and NSAIDs, irrespective of aspirin use.ConclusionsIn this study, celecoxib, at dosages greater than those indicated clinically,
was associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic ulcers and ulcer complications
combined, as well as other clinically important toxic effects, compared with
NSAIDs at standard dosages. The decrease in upper GI toxicity was strongest
among patients not taking aspirin concomitantly.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/193062/JOC01227.pdf

Gastrointestinal Toxicity With Celecoxib vs Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: The CLASS Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The beneficial actions of nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) can be associated with inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 whereas their harmful side effects are associated with inhibition of COX-1. Here we report data from two related assay systems, the human whole blood assay and a modified human whole blood assay (using human A549 cells as a source of COX-2). This assay we refer to as the William Harvey Modified Assay. Our aim was to make meaningful comparisons of both classical NSAIDs and newer COX-2-selective compounds. These comparisons of the actions of >40 NSAIDs and novel COX-2-selective agents, including celecoxib, rofecoxib and diisopropyl fluorophosphate, demonstrate a distribution of compound selectivities toward COX-1 that aligns with the risk of serious gastrointestinal complications. In conclusion, this full in vitro analysis of COX-1/2 selectivities in human tissues clearly supports the theory that inhibition of COX-1 underlies the gastrointestinal toxicity of NSAIDs in man.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/96/13/7563.full.pdf

Nonsteroid drug selectivities for cyclo-oxygenase-1 rather than cyclo-oxygenase-2 are associated with human gastrointestinal toxicity: A full in vitro analysis

Platelet-Active Drugs: The Relationships Among Dose, Effectiveness, and Side Effects

Background Misoprostol is effective for ulcers associated with the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) but is often poorly tolerated because of diarrhea and abdominal pain. We compared the efficacy of omeprazole and misoprostol in healing and preventing ulcers associated with NSAIDs. Methods In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 935 patients who required continuous NSAID therapy and who had ulcers or more than 10 erosions in the stomach or duodenum (or both) to receive 20 mg or 40 mg of omeprazole orally in the morning or 200 μg of misoprostol orally four times daily. Patients were treated for four weeks or, in the absence of healing, eight weeks. Treatment success was defined as the absence of ulcers and the presence of fewer than five erosions at each site and not more than mild dyspepsia. We then randomly reassigned 732 patients in whom treatment was successful to maintenance therapy with 20 mg of omeprazole daily, 200 μg of misoprostol twice daily, or placebo for six months. Re...

/pdf/omeprazole-compared-with-misoprostol-for-ulcers-associated-4bsqja1hck.pdf

Omeprazole Compared with Misoprostol for Ulcers Associated with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs

Background In the last decades, studies have estimated the upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding/perforation (UGIB) risk associated with individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Later analyses have also included the effect of patterns of NSAID use, risk factors for UGIB, and modifiers of NSAID effect. Methods Systematic review of case-control and cohort studies on serious gastrointestinal tract complications and nonaspirin NSAIDs published between 1990 and 1999 using MEDLINE. Eighteen original studies were selected according to predefined criteria. Two researchers extracted the data independently. Pooled relative risk estimates were calculated according to subject and exposure characteristics. Heterogeneity of effects was tested and reasons for heterogeneity were considered. Results Advanced age, history of peptic ulcer disease, and being male were risk factors for UGIB. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users with advanced age or a history of peptic ulcer had the highest absolute risks. The pooled relative risk of UGIB after exposure to NSAIDs was 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.1). The increased risk was maintained during treatment and returned to baseline once treatment was stopped. A clear dose response was observed. There was some variation in risk between individual NSAIDs, though these differences were markedly attenuated when comparable daily doses were considered. Conclusions The elderly and patients with a history of peptic ulcer could benefit the most from a reduction in NSAID gastrotoxicity. Whenever possible, physicians may wish to recommend lower doses to reduce the UGIB risk associated with all individual NSAIDs, especially in the subgroup of patients with the greatest background risk.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/485416/ira90047.pdf

Association Between Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Bleeding/Perforation: An Overview of Epidemiologic Studies Published in the 1990s

Objective: To compare the relative risks of serious gastrointestinal complications reported with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design: Systematic review of controlled epidemiological studies that found a relation between use of the drugs and admission to hospital for haemorrhage or perforation. Setting: Hospital and community based casecontrol and cohort studies. Main outcome measures: (a) Estimated relative risks of gastrointestinal complications with use of individual drugs, exposure to ibuprofen being used as reference; (b) a ranking that best summarised the sequence of relative risks observed in the studies. Results: 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. 11 provided comparative data on ibuprofen and other drugs. Ibuprofen ranked lowest or equal lowest for risk in 10 of the 11 studies. Pooled relative risks calculated with exposure to ibuprofen used as reference were all significantly greater than 1.0 (interval of point estimates 1.6 to 9.2). Overall, ibuprofen was associated with the lowest relative risk, followed by diclofenac. Azapropazone, tolmetin, ketoprofen, and piroxicam ranked highest for risk and indomethacin, naproxen, sulindac, and aspirin occupied intermediate positions. Higher doses of ibuprofen were associated with relative risks similar to those with naproxen and indomethacin. Conclusions: The low risk of serious gastrointestinal complications with ibuprofen seems to be attributable mainly to the low doses of the drug used in clinical practice. In higher doses ibuprofen is associated with a similar risk to other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Use of low risk drugs in low dosage as first line treatment would substantially reduce the morbidity and mortality due to serious gastrointestinal toxicity from these drugs. Key messages Because there are no important differences in efficacy, choice of first line treatment with these drugs should be based on their relative toxicity Meta-analysis of the available epidemiological studies shows wide differences between individual drugs in the risk of inducing gastrointestinal bleed- ing and ulcer perforation Of the drugs in common use, ibuprofen and diclofenac rank low in toxicity whereas azapropa- zone, ketoprofen, and piroxicam rank high Some of the differences between drugs may be explained by dose, and the advantage of “low risk” drugs may be lost once their dose is increased

/pdf/variability-in-risk-of-gastrointestinal-complications-with-brqmz4u8y4.pdf

Ruth Savage

Papers

Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis.