Análisis y evaluación del riesgo cardiovascular y gastrointestinal de los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos inhibidores selectivos y no selectivos de ciclooxigenasa / Analysis and evaluation of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risk of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs selective and non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors

Objetivos: revisar la evidencia publicada sobre el uso de AINE (coxibs y clásicos) y evaluar el riesgo cardiovascular (RCV) y gastrointestinal (RGI) asociado. Material y métodos: fueron seleccionados los estudios de cohorte y caso-control que mostraban el RCV o RGI de los AINE versus no expuestos. Se calculó el RR ponderado y el intervalo de confianza 95% para todos los AINE conjuntamente y de forma individual. Resultados: se observó un RCV significativo tanto con coxibs [RR= 1.24 (1.19-1.31)] como con AINE clásicos [RR= 1.18 (1.13-1.24)]. Para los coxibs sería elevado incluso a dosis bajas y en sujetos con RCV basal bajo. Por fármaco individual, rofecoxib [RR= 1.41 (1.33-1.50)] junto con diclofenaco [RR= 1.36 (1.27-1.47)] y etoricoxib [RR= 1.26 (1.08-1.48)] son los AINE con mayor RCV. El metaanálisis sobre el RGI mostró riesgo con los coxibs [RR 1.64 (95% CI 1.44-1.86)]. Por fármaco individual, etoricoxib [RR 4.48 (95% CI 2.98-6.75)] presentó mayor riesgo seguido de rofecoxib [RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.56-2.61)] y celecoxib [RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.46-1.78)]. El riesgo también fue elevado para dosis bajas y edad <65 años. Conclusión: según nuestro estudio, el uso de AINE (coxibs y clásicos) está relacionado con un incremento similar del RCV, incluso a dosis bajas y en pacientes con un RCV bajo-medio. Por otro lado, el uso de coxibs se relacionaría con un incremento del RGI, siendo elevado incluso para dosis bajas y edad <65 años. El riesgo para etoricoxib podría ser superior que para celecoxib y rofecoxib.(AU)

Introduction: the aim of this study is to review the current evidence on the clinical use of NSAIDs, coxibs and nonselective, and to evaluate its cardiovascular (CVR) and gastrointestinal risk (GIR) by means of a meta-analytic procedure. Materials and methods: cohort and case-control studies showing CVR and GIR associated with NSAIDs versus no treatment were selected. We estimated the pooled RR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for all NSAIDs as a whole and individually. Results: both coxibs (RR, 1.22 [95%CI, 1.17-1.28]) and nonselective NSAIDs (RR 1.18 [95%CI, 1.12-1.24]) were associated with an increased CVR. The coxibs CVR remained even for low-dose and low-baseline CVR subgroups. Analysis by drug disclosed that rofecoxib (RR 1.39 [95%CI, 1.31- 1.47]), along with diclofenac (RR, 1.34 [95%CI, 1.26-1.42]) and etoricoxib (RR 1.27 [95%CI, 1.12-1.43]) were the NSAIDs associated with the highest CVR. Gastrointestinal risk meta-analysis showed that coxibs were associated with a GIR increment [RR1.64 (95% CI 1.44-1.86)]. Analysis by drug disclosed that etoricoxib [RR 4.48 (95% CI 2.98-6.75)]presented the highest GIR followed by rofecoxib [RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.56-2.61)] and celecoxib [RR1.62 (95% CI 1.46-1.78)]. GIR was also high for <65 year-old and low-dose coxibs subgroups. Conclusion: according to our study the use of NSAIDs (coxibs and nonselective) are associated with a similar CVR increment, even for low-dose and low-baseline CVR subgroups. On the other hand, the use of coxibs is associated with a GIR increased, which would be high even for low-dose coxibs and <65-year-old subgroups. The risk would be higher for etoricoxib than for celecoxib and rofecoxib.

Gastrointestinal safety of coxibs: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on selective inhibitors of cyclo-oxygenase 2.

Prior meta-analyses have shown a higher gastrointestinal risk of nonselective NSAIDs versus placebo and a lower gastrointestinal risk of coxibs versus nonselective NSAIDs. However, the available data about gastrointestinal risk for coxibs versus placebo are scarce. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence on the use of coxibs and to evaluate the risk of gastrointestinal adverse outcomes (GAO) associated with coxibs versus nonexposed. Search was conducted on PubMed and Embase databases. We selected cohort observational, case-control, nested case-control and case-crossover studies that reported the risk of GAO associated with coxibs versus nonexposed as relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR) or incidence rate ratio (IRR). It was estimated the pooled RR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for coxibs both individually and as a whole by the DerSimonian and Laird method. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, coxibs were associated with a significant increment in the risk of GAO [RR 1.64 (95% CI 1.44-1.86)]. The analysis by individual drugs showed that etoricoxib [RR 4.85 (95% CI 2.64-8.93)] presented the highest gastrointestinal risk, followed by rofecoxib [RR 2.02 (95% CI 1.56-2.61)] and celecoxib [RR 1.53 (95% CI 1.19-1.97)]. Gastrointestinal risk was also high for the subgroups aged <65 years and low-dose coxibs. The use of coxibs is associated with a statistically significant increased risk of GAO, which would be high even for low-dose coxibs and <65-year-old subgroups. The risk would be higher for etoricoxib than for celecoxib and rofecoxib.

[Impact of the spanish pharmacovigilance system recommendations on the publication of cases of adverse drug reaction]. / Impacto de las recomendaciones del Sistema Español de Farmacovigilancia en la publicación de casos de reacciones adversas a medicamentos.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the recommendations that, the Technical Committee of the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System sent, in 2004, to the editors of Spanish medical journals on the minimum information required for publication of adverse drug reaction case reports. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: National suspected adverse drug reactions database (FEDRA). PARTICIPANTS: Published adverse drug reaction reports registered in FEDRA, published in the years before (2003) and after (2005) the recommendations were issued. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The following data elements were analysed: sex, age, dose, disease treated with the suspected drug, length of treatment and adverse drug reaction, temporal sequence, withdrawal effect, and alternative causes. The results of the 2 years were compared. RESULTS: The information in the case reports published between years 2003 and 2005 was not significantly different. The data elements more often incomplete were dose, length of treatment, as well as length of adverse reaction. Approximately one third of the published case reports included full information. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be a need to improve the data elements content of published adverse drug reactions case reports, so that such documentation can contribute to improve the assessment of alert signals.

Impacto de las recomendaciones del Sistema Español de Farmacovigilancia en la publicación de casos de reacciones adversas a medicamentos / Impact of the spanish pharmacovigilance system recommendation son the publication of cases of adverse drug reactions

Objetivo. Evaluar el impacto de lasrecomendaciones que el Comité Técnico delSistema Español de Farmacovigilancia envióa los editores de revistas médicas españolasen el año 2004 sobre la información mínimaque deberían contener los casos publicadosde reacciones adversas a medicamentos.Diseño. Estudio observacional.Emplazamiento. Base de datos nacional desospechas de reacciones adversas (FEDRA).Participantes. Notificaciones de publicacionesde sospechas de reacciones adversasregistradas en FEDRA y publicadas enlos años previo (2003) y posterior (2005)al envío de las recomendaciones.Mediciones principales. Información en losapartados: sexo, edad, dosis, motivo de laprescripción, duraciones del tratamiento y dela reacción, secuencia temporal, efecto de laretirada y causas alternativas de laspublicaciones de sospechas de reaccionesadversas registradas en FEDRA. Secompararon los resultados de los 2 años.Resultados. No se observaron diferenciassignificativas en la información contenidaen las publicaciones de casos de reaccionesadversas entre los años 2003 y 2005.Los apartados que con mayor frecuenciapresentaban información incompleta eranlas dosis y duraciones de los tratamientosy de la reacción adversa. Sólo un tercio,aproximadamente, de las publicacionescontenían información completa.Conclusiones. Es necesario mejorarel contenido de la información de laspublicaciones de casos de reacciones adversasa medicamentos para que esta mejordocumentación contribuya a mejorarla evaluación de las señales de alerta

Objective. To assess the impact of therecommendations that, the TechnicalCommittee of the SpanishPharmacovigilance System sent, in 2004,to the editors of Spanish medical journalson the minimum information required forpublication of adverse drug reaction casereports.Design. Observational study.Setting. National suspected adverse drugreactions database (FEDRA).Participants. Published adverse drug reactionreports registered in FEDRA, publishedin the years before (2003) and after (2005)the recommendations were issued.Main measurements. The following dataelements were analysed: sex, age, dose,disease treated with the suspecteddrug, length of treatment and adverse drugreaction, temporal sequence, withdrawaleffect, and alternative causes. The resultsof the 2 years were compared.Results. The information in the case reportspublished between years 2003 and 2005was not significantly different. The dataelements more often incomplete were dose,length of treatment, as well as length ofadverse reaction. Approximately one thirdof the published case reports included fullinformation.Conclusions. There seems to be a needto improve the data elements contentof published adverse drug reactions casereports, so that such documentation can contribute to improve the assessment of alert signals (AU)