Susana Perez-Gutthann

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.

Case-control study on the association of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Japan.

ObjectiveStudies in Western populations have shown the association of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The role of Helicobacter pylori infection in NSAIDs-related UGIB remains to be studied. We conducted a case-control study in Japan to investigate these related topics.MethodsCases of UGIB due to duodenal or gastric ulcer, or gastritis were identified in 14 study hospitals in various areas of Japan. For each case, two controls were identified from population registries in the same district. Information on drugs and other risk factors was obtained from 175 cases and 347 controls by telephone interviews. Anti-H. pylori antibody in the urine was measured in a single laboratory for all the cases and 225 controls.ResultsThe odds ratio (OR) of UGIB was 5.5 for aspirin and 6.1 for other NSAIDs (NANSAIDs) (p<0.01). The OR for regular use was higher than for occasional use both for aspirin (7.7 vs 2.0) and NANSAIDs (7.3 vs 4.1). Loxoprofen (5.9), frequently used in Japan as a safe ‘prodrug’, was significantly associated with UGIB. The odds ratio for H. pylori infection was 4.9 and the relative excess risk due to the interaction between H. pylori and the use of NSAID was 1.2 (95% CI: −5.8–8.1).ConclusionNSAIDs including loxoprofen increase the risk of UGIB in Japan as in Western countries, with a similar magnitude of association. There was no evidence of biological interaction between NSAIDs and H. pylori infection.

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).

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.

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.

The risk of heart failure associated with the use of noninsulin blood glucose-lowering drugs: systematic review and meta-analysis of published observational studies

BackgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at high risk of heart failure. A summary of the effects of blood glucose-lowering drugs other than glitazones on the risk of heart failure in routine clinical practice is lacking. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of heart failure when using blood glucose-lowering drugs.MethodsWe systematically identified and reviewed cohort and case–control studies in which the main exposure of interest was noninsulin blood glucose-lowering medications in patients with T2DM. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify publications meeting prespecified eligibility criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed and random-effects models when at least 3 independent data points were available for a drug-drug comparison.ResultsThe summary relative risk of heart failure in rosiglitazone users versus pioglitazone users (95% CI) was 1.16 (1.05-1.28) (5 cohort studies). Heterogeneity was present (I2 = 66%). For new users (n = 4) the summary relative risk was 1.21 (1.14-1.30) and the heterogeneity was reduced (I2 = 31%);. The summary relative risk for rosiglitazone versus metformin was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.17-1.59) (n = 3). The summary relative risk (95% CI) of heart failure in sulfonylureas users versus metformin users was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.06-1.29) (5 cohort studies; I2 = 24%) and 1.22 (1.02-1.46) when restricted to new users (2 studies).Information on other comparisons was very scarce. Information on dose and duration of treatment effects was lacking for most comparisons. Few studies accounted for disease severity; therefore, confounding by indication might be present in the majority of the within-study comparisons of this meta-analysis.ConclusionsUse of glitazones and sulfonylureas was associated with an increased risk of heart failure compared with metformin use. However, indication bias cannot be ruled out. Ongoing large multidatabase studies will help to evaluate the risk of heart failure in treated patients with diabetes, including those using newer blood glucose-lowering therapies.

The use of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and the risk of acute myocardial infarction in Saskatchewan, Canada †

Meta‐analyses of observational studies show variability in the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with an increase in risk for rofecoxib and diclofenac, and no increase in risk for celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen.

Pharmacovigilance during the pre-approval phases: An evolving pharmaceutical industry model in response to ICH E2E, CIOMS VI, FDA and EMEA/CHMP risk-management guidelines:

Pharmacovigilance science has traditionally been a discipline focussed on the postmarketing or post-authorisation period, with due attention directed towards pre-clinical safety data, clinical trials and adverse events. As the biological sciences have evolved, pharmacovigilance has slowly shifted toward earlier, proactive consideration of risks and potential benefits of drugs in the pre- and peri-approval stages of drug development, leading to a maturing of drug safety risk management. Further advances in biology, pharmacology and improvements in computational applications to medicine have led to the development of more complex medicines previously unobtainable and have also permitted a more thorough assessment of risks and potential benefits even earlier in the development process. Elevated public concern with the safety of more sophisticated medicines, combined with new science, have led pharmaceutical innovators, regulators and healthcare professionals to collaborate to develop guidelines, which drive enhanced pharmacovigilance and safety risk management earlier in drug development.In this paper, we review international guidelines on pharmacovigilance planning applicable to the pre-approval phases of medicines development and provide author opinion on these guidelines’ potential drug safety implications. We discuss the possible evolution of a pharmaceutical industry model to respond to these guidelines; a view on multidisciplinary safety management teams is provided to encourage refinement of safety-signal identification and risk assessment early in drug development and to communicate important safety concerns to internal research efforts, patients, investigators and regulators. We further describe these functions in the context of the complexities of vulnerable populations, including the example of medicines research for paediatric populations. We also discuss the special role of epidemiology in pre-approval drug development and the impact on epidemiological science of changes to the pharmacovigilance paradigm.

Risk of upper gastrointestinal complications associated with cyclooxygenase-2 selective and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

Study Objective. To estimate the risk of upper gastrointestinal complications associated with use of cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) selective (celecoxib and rofecoxib) and individual nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared with nonuse of these drugs.