Cristina Varas-Lorenzo

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.

Individual NSAIDs and Upper Gastrointestinal Complications A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies (the SOS Project)

AbstractBackground: The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [SOS] project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. Methods: We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies. Results: A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4–5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses. Conclusions: We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.

Hormone Replacement Therapy and Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction A Population-Based Nested Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND Epidemiological studies suggest a decreased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy women taking hormonal replacement therapy (HRT). Whether this effect is shared by oral and transdermal preparations is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS We conducted a population-based case-control study nested in a cohort of women 50 to 74 years of age without cardiovascular disease history in the United Kingdom. Among 164 769 women from the General Practice Research Database (January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1995), we identified 1242 first acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) and confirmed 1013 after medical record review. We randomly selected 5000 age-frequency-matched control subjects. AMI incidence was 1.6 per 1000 person-years; 13% and 17% of cases and control subjects used HRT within 6 months before the index date. Risk factor and comorbidity-adjusted OR of AMI for current-recent HRT users compared with nonusers was 0.72 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.89). The OR was similar within 30 days before the index date. The beneficial effect was present after 1 year of use (OR 0. 68; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86), with no increase in risk within the first year. ORs for unopposed and opposed therapy were 0.52 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.78) and 0.79 (95% CI 0. 59 to 1.08); 79% and 21% used oral and transdermal therapy. The protective effect was present at medium-high doses of estrogens with ORs for oral and transdermal therapy of 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.86) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.06) and ceased after 2 to 3 years since stopping HRT. CONCLUSIONS Results are consistent with those previously reported in women without CHD who were taking oral HRT and, although based on few users, suggest that transdermal therapy might have similar cardioprotective effects.

Cardiovascular Risks of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Patients After Hospitalization for Serious Coronary Heart Disease

Background—The cardiovascular safety of individual nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is highly controversial, particularly in persons with serious coronary heart disease. Methods and Results—We conducted a multisite retrospective cohort study of commonly used individual NSAIDs in Tennessee Medicaid, Saskatchewan Health, and United Kingdom General Practice Research databases. The cohort included 48 566 patients recently hospitalized for myocardial infarction, revascularization, or unstable angina pectoris with more than 111 000 person-years of follow-up. Naproxen users had the lowest adjusted rates of serious coronary heart disease (myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death) and serious cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, stroke)/death from any cause, with respective incidence rate ratios (relative to NSAID nonusers) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.17) and 0.91 (0.78 to 1.06). Risk did not increase with doses ≥1000 mg. Relative to NSAID nonusers, serious coronary heart disease risk increased with short term (<90 days) use for ibuprofen (1.67 [1.09 to 2.57]), diclofenac (1.86 [1.18 to 2.92]), celecoxib (1.37 [0.96 to 1.94]), and rofecoxib (1.46 [1.03 to 2.07]), but not for naproxen (0.88 [0.50 to 1.55]). Relative to naproxen, current users of diclofenac had increased risk of serious coronary heart disease (1.44 [0.96 to 2.15], P=0.076) and serious cardiovascular disease/death (1.52 [1.22 to 1.89], P=0.0002), and those of ibuprofen had increased risk of the latter end point (1.25 [1.02 to 1.53], P=0.032). Compared to naproxen in doses ≥1000 mg, serious coronary heart disease incidence rate ratios were increased for rofecoxib >25 mg (2.29 [1.24 to 4.22], P=0.008) and celecoxib >200 mg (1.61 [1.01 to 2.57], P=0.046). Conclusions—In patients recently hospitalized for serious coronary heart disease, naproxen had better cardiovascular safety than did diclofenac, ibuprofen, and higher doses of celecoxib and rofecoxib.

Myocardial infarction and individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs meta-analysis of observational studies

To conduct a systematic review of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with use of individual nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Risk of serious ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in a cohort of users of domperidone: a nested case-control study

Limited information from spontaneous reports and results of two case‐control studies raised concern about the cardiotoxicity of oral domperidone therapy. This case‐control study nested in a retrospective cohort evaluated the combined risk of serious ventricular arrhythmia (SVA) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in users of domperidone compared with users of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), or non‐users of these medications.

Positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes 410 and 411 in the identification of cases of acute coronary syndromes in the Saskatchewan Hospital automated database

Case definitions are essential to epidemiological research.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of first hospital admission for heart failure in the general population.

Objectives: To estimate the risk of a first hospital admission for heart failure (HF) associated with the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Methods: Cohort study with a nested case–control analysis based on the UK General Practice Research Database. Overall, 1396 cases of first hospital admission for non-fatal HF were identified (January 1997 to December 2000) and compared with a random sample of 5000 controls. Results: The incidence rate was 2.7/1000 person years. Prior clinical diagnosis of HF was the main independent risk factor triggering a first HF hospitalisation (relative risk 7.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.1 to 8.8). The risk of a first hospital admission for HF associated with current use of NSAIDs was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.6) after controlling for major confounding factors. No effects of dose and duration were found. The relative risk in current users of NSAIDs with prior HF was 8.6 (95% CI 5.3 to 13.8) compared with patients who did not use NSAIDs and without prior clinical diagnosis of HF. Conclusion: Use of NSAIDs was associated with a small increase in risk of a first hospitalisation for HF. In patients with prior clinical diagnosis of HF, the use of NSAIDs may lead to worsening of pre-existing HF that triggers their hospital admission. This increased risk, although small, may result in considerable public health impact, particularly among the elderly.

Stroke risk and NSAIDs: a systematic review of observational studies

To perform a quantitative systematic review of observational studies on the risk of stroke associated with the use of individual NSAIDs.

Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank

Background The study objective was to compare the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the RTI item bank (RTI-IB) and estimate interrater agreement using the RTI-IB within a systematic review on the cardiovascular safety of glucose-lowering drugs. Methods We tailored both tools and added four questions to the RTI-IB. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the 44 included studies with both tools, (independently for the RTI-IB) and agreed on which responses conveyed low, unclear, or high risk of bias. For each question in the RTI-IB (n=31), the observed interrater agreement was calculated as the percentage of studies given the same bias assessment by both reviewers; chance-adjusted interrater agreement was estimated with the first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) statistic. Results The NOS required less tailoring and was easier to use than the RTI-IB, but the RTI-IB produced a more thorough assessment. The RTI-IB includes most of the domains measured in the NOS. Median observed interrater agreement for the RTI-IB was 75% (25th percentile [p25] =61%; p75 =89%); median AC1 statistic was 0.64 (p25 =0.51; p75 =0.86). Conclusion The RTI-IB facilitates a more complete quality assessment than the NOS but is more burdensome. The observed agreement and AC1 statistic in this study were higher than those reported by the RTI-IB’s developers.