Cardiorenal risk of celecoxib compared with naproxen or ibuprofen in arthritis patients: insights from the PRECISION trial.

AIMS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most frequently used drugs, both prescribed and over the counter. The long-term cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs in patients with arthritis has engendered controversy. Concerns remain regarding the relative incidence and severity of adverse cardiorenal effects, particularly in arthritis patients with established cardiovascular (CV) disease or risk factors for disease as illustrated by the PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs. Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) trial participants (NCT00346216).We further investigated whether the selective COX-2 Inhibitor celecoxib has a superior cardiorenal safety profile compared with ibuprofen or naproxen in the PRECISION population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four thousand eighty-one patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and had increased CV risk randomly received celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The current pre-specified secondary analysis assessed the incidence, severity, and NSAID-related risk of the pre-specified composite cardiorenal outcome (adjudicated renal event, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, or hospitalization for hypertension) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. An on-treatment analysis assessed safety in those taking the study medication. Following a mean treatment duration of 20.3 ± 16.0 months and a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 13.4 months, the primary cardiorenal composite outcome occurred in 423 patients (1.76%) in the ITT population. Of these 423 patients, 118 (28%) were in the celecoxib, 166 (39%) in the ibuprofen, and 139 (33%) in the naproxen group. In a multivariable Cox regression model adjusted for independent clinical variables, celecoxib showed a significantly lower risk compared with ibuprofen [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.85, P = 0.001) and a trend to lower risk compared with naproxen (HR 0.79, CI 0.61-1.00, P = 0.058). In the ITT analysis, clinically significant renal events occurred in 220 patients with events rates of 0.71%, 1.14%, and 0.89% for celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen, respectively (P = 0.052), while in the on-treatment analysis the rates were 0.52%, 0.91%, and 0.78% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the current era, long-term NSAID use was associated with few cardiorenal events in arthritis patients. At the doses studied, celecoxib displayed fewer renal events and hence more favourable cardiovascular safety compared with ibuprofen or naproxen. These results have considerable clinical implications for practitioners managing individuals with chronic arthritis pain and high risk of impaired renal function and/or heart failure.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00346216.

Effect of Left Ventricular Conduction Delay on All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality (from the PRECISION Trial).

The prognosis associated with prolonged intraventricular conduction on electrocardiogram (ECG) remains uncertain. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of narrow versus prolonged intraventricular conduction on ECG stratified by QRS morphology and cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. A post-hoc analysis was performed of the randomized-control PRECISION trial. Patients with centrally adjudicated, nonpaced baseline ECGs were included. QRS duration was classified narrow (≤100 ms) versus prolonged (>100 ms) with additional categorization into left (LBBB) or right (RBBB) bundle branch block or nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD). IVCD was subclassified if left ventricular conduction delay (LVCD) was present (L-IVCD) or absent (O-IVCD). The primary outcome was adjudicated all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Of 24,081 patients randomized, 22,067 (92%) were included with follow-up 34 ± 13 months. Study patients were 63 ± 9 years, 64% female, 75% Caucasian, 23% with established CVD. The prevalence of QRS prolongation was 5.6% (1,240): 760 right bundle branch block (3.4%), 313 LBBB (1.4%), and 161 IVCD (0.7%), 95 subclassified L-IVCD (0.4%). After adjustment, LBBB and L-IVCD were similarly associated with increased all-cause (LBBB: 2.3 [1.4 to 3.8], p = 0.001; L-IVCD: 4.0 [2.1 to 7.9], p <0.001) and CV (LBBB: 3.6 [2.0 to 6.5], p <0.001; L-IVCD 3.6 [1.3 to 9.7], p = 0.001) mortality. The presence of LVCD (LBBB or L-IVCD) was associated with all-cause (2.8 [1.8 to 4.2], p <0.001) and CV (3.6 [2.2 to 6.1], p <0.001) mortality exceeding the observed risks of coronary artery disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, or diabetes. The LVCD hazard persisted across QRS durations (100 to 120 vs >120 ms) and CVD status. In conclusion, LVCD, whether LBBB or L-IVCD, was strongly associated with increased mortality in patients with and at-risk for CVD.

Effect of Aspirin Coadministration on the Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen.

BACKGROUND: The safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and aspirin coadministration is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the safety of combining NSAIDs with low-dose aspirin. METHODS: This analysis of the PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen) trial included 23,953 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at increased cardiovascular risk randomized to celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The on-treatment population was used for this study. Outcomes included composite major adverse cardiovascular events, noncardiovascular death, gastrointestinal or renal events, and components of the composite. Cox proportional hazards models compared outcomes among NSAIDs stratified by aspirin use following propensity score adjustment. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the cumulative probability of events. RESULTS: When taken without aspirin, naproxen or ibuprofen had greater risk for the primary composite endpoint compared with celecoxib (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 1.90, p <0.001; and HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.26; p <0.001, respectively). Compared with celecoxib, ibuprofen had more major adverse cardiovascular events (p < 0.05), and both ibuprofen and naproxen had more gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and renal (p < 0.05) events. Taken with aspirin, ibuprofen had greater risk for the primary composite endpoint compared with celecoxib (HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.51; p < 0.01); this was not significantly higher with naproxen (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.41; p = 0.08). Among patients on aspirin, major adverse cardiovascular events were similar among NSAIDs, and compared with celecoxib, ibuprofen had more gastrointestinal and renal events (p < 0.05), while naproxen had more gastrointestinal events (p < 0.05), without a difference in renal events. Similar results were seen on adjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib has a more favorable overall safety profile than naproxen or ibuprofen when taken without aspirin. Adding aspirin attenuates the safety advantage of celecoxib, although celecoxib is still associated with fewer gastrointestinal events than ibuprofen or naproxen and fewer renal events than ibuprofen. (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen or Naproxen [PRECISION]; NCT00346216).

Differences in Safety of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Patients With Osteoarthritis and Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative risks of cardiovascular (CV), gastrointestinal (GI), and renal adverse events during long-term treatment with celecoxib, compared with ibuprofen and naproxen, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A total of 24,081 patients with OA or RA who had a moderate or high risk for CV disease were enrolled internationally into a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Interventions included celecoxib at a dosage of 100-200 mg twice daily, ibuprofen at a dosage of 600-800 mg 3 times daily, or naproxen at a dosage of 375-500 mg twice daily. The main outcomes were the first occurrence of a major adverse CV event, GI event, or renal event, and mortality. RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients with OA, the risk of a major adverse CV event was significantly reduced when celecoxib was compared with ibuprofen (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.72-0.99), but no significant difference was observed when celecoxib was compared with naproxen. In the RA subgroup, comparisons of celecoxib versus ibuprofen and celecoxib versus naproxen for the risk of major adverse CV events revealed HRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.69-1.63) and 1.22 (95% CI 0.78-1.92), respectively. In the OA subgroup, comparisons of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the risk of GI events showed an HR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.51-0.91), and a comparison of celecoxib versus naproxen showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.55-0.98). Duplicate comparisons in patients with RA revealed HRs of 0.48 (95% CI 0.22-1.07) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.24-1.24), respectively. In patients with OA, a comparison of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the risk of renal events showed an HR of 0.58 (95% CI 0.40-0.82). In patients with RA, celecoxib treatment was associated with significantly lower mortality compared with naproxen treatment (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.88). CONCLUSION: Treatment with celecoxib at approved dosages conferred a similar or lower risk of CV, GI, and renal adverse events compared with treatment with ibuprofen or naproxen in patients with OA and patients with RA.

Study Protocol for a Home-based Obesity Prevention Program in Latino Preschool Children.

PURPOSE: This paper describes the study design for ANDALE Pittsburgh, a culturally-appropriate, family-based intervention to promote a healthy weight in Latino preschool children. METHODS/DESIGN: The study was organized into two major phases: Phase I: Conduct focus groups with 30 Latino parents of preschool children to inform the development of a culturally-appropriate intervention; Phase II: Test the feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention with 50 families. Participants were recruited from an emerging Latino community through community gatherings, flyers, and word of mouth. Six promotoras (females >18 years, active in community) received 25 hours of training using the intervention curriculum finalized after Phase I. Promotoras delivered the home-based intervention to families over 10, 90-minute weekly sessions that included education, practice, and action (i.e., goal setting). Behavior modification constructs and strategies (e.g., goal setting, problem solving, social support), and building of self-efficacy through healthy recipe preparation and physical activity breaks, were also included. Outcomes (e.g., child BMI) were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Process evaluation assessed fidelity, dose, reach, recruitment, and contextual factors using multiple data sources and mixed methods. DISCUSSION: The ANDALE Pittsburgh study will expand the body of knowledge on interventions to promote a healthy weight in Latino preschool children living in an emerging Latino community. If successful, this approach will be evaluated in a future, larger-scale intervention and provide a potential model to help to address and prevent obesity in this population.

Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial.

AIMS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number NCT00346216.

The Risk of Major NSAID Toxicity with Celecoxib, Ibuprofen, or Naproxen: A Secondary Analysis of the PRECISION Trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative safety of long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is unclear. Patients and providers are interested in an integrated view of risk . We examined the risk of major nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity in the PRECISION trial. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial enrolling 24,081 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at moderate or high cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized to receive celecoxib 100 to 200 mg twice daily, ibuprofen 600 to 800 mg thrice daily, or naproxen 375 to 500 mg twice daily. All patients were provided with a proton pump inhibitor. The outcome was major nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity, including time to first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, important gastrointestinal events, renal events, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: During follow-up, 4.1% of subjects sustained any major toxicity in the celecoxib arm, 4.8% in the naproxen arm, and 5.3% in the ibuprofen arm. Analyses adjusted for aspirin use and geographic region found that subjects in the naproxen arm had a 20% (95% CI 4-39) higher risk of major toxicity than celecoxib users and that 38% (95% CI 19-59) higher risk. These risks translate into numbers needed to harm of 135 (95% CI, 72-971) for naproxen and 82 (95% CI, 53-173) for ibuprofen, both compared with celecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic arthritis who had moderate to high risk of cardiovascular events, approximately 1 in 20 experienced a major toxicity over 1 to 2 years. Patients using naproxen or ibuprofen experienced significantly higher risk of major toxicity than those using celecoxib.

Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, as compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and of 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population. Gastrointestinal and renal outcomes were also adjudicated. RESULTS: A total of 24,081 patients were randomly assigned to the celecoxib group (mean [±SD] daily dose, 209±37 mg), the naproxen group (852±103 mg), or the ibuprofen group (2045±246 mg) for a mean treatment duration of 20.3±16.0 months and a mean follow-up period of 34.1±13.4 months. During the trial, 68.8% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27.4% of the patients discontinued follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occurred in 188 patients in the celecoxib group (2.3%), 201 patients in the naproxen group (2.5%), and 218 patients in the ibuprofen group (2.7%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.13; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). In the on-treatment analysis, a primary outcome event occurred in 134 patients in the celecoxib group (1.7%), 144 patients in the naproxen group (1.8%), and 155 patients in the ibuprofen group (1.9%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). The risk of gastrointestinal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.01) or ibuprofen (P=0.002); the risk of renal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with ibuprofen (P=0.004) but was not significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: At moderate doses, celecoxib was found to be noninferior to ibuprofen or naproxen with regard to cardiovascular safety. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00346216 .).

Rationale, design, and governance of Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION), a cardiovascular end point trial of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents in patients with arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis often requires long-term use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, the relative cardiovascular safety of these therapies remains uncertain. METHODS: The Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION) trial will evaluate the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen. Approximately 20,000 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at high risk for, or with, established cardiovascular disease will be randomized in this double-blind, triple dummy, multinational, multicenter study. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The trial will continue until 762 primary events occur with at least 18 months follow-up. Noninferiority of any of the regimens will require a 97.5% upper CI of the hazard ratio (HR) < or =1.33 and point estimate < or =1.12 for both intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations. CONCLUSION: PRECISION, the first study of patients with high cardiovascular risk chronically treated with a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor or nonselective NSAID, will define the relative cardiovascular safety profile of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen and provide data to help guide NSAID use for pain management for this population.

Intravascular ultrasound assessment of novel antiatherosclerotic therapies: rationale and design of the Acyl-CoA:Cholesterol Acyltransferase Intravascular Atherosclerosis Treatment Evaluation (ACTIVATE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Inhibiting the enzyme acyl-CoA:cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT) has beneficial effects on foam cell formation and therefore has the potential to favorably influence the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. The aim of this study is to determine whether ACAT inhibition, when added to usual medical care, reduces atheroma progression in subjects with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Five hundred thirty-four subjects with established coronary artery disease on angiography were randomized to receive the experimental ACAT inhibitor, pactimibe, 100 mg daily or matching placebo for 18 months. The primary efficacy parameter will be the nominal change in percent atheroma volume determined by analysis of pullback intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images of matched coronary artery segments acquired at baseline and 18-month follow-up. In addition, the effect of pactimibe on plasma lipids and inflammatory markers and the incidence of clinical cardiovascular events will also be assessed. CONCLUSION: Serial IVUS has emerged as a sensitive imaging modality to assess the impact that novel antiatherosclerotic strategies have on the arterial wall. In this study, IVUS will be used to assess whether ACAT inhibition modifies progression of atherosclerotic plaque.

Effect of ACAT inhibition on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The enzyme acyl-coenzyme A:cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT) esterifies cholesterol in a variety of tissues. In some animal models, ACAT inhibitors have antiatherosclerotic effects. METHODS: We performed intravascular ultrasonography in 408 patients with angiographically documented coronary disease. All patients received usual care for secondary prevention, including statins, if indicated. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the ACAT inhibitor pactimibe (100 mg per day) or matching placebo. Ultrasonography was repeated after 18 months to measure the progression of atherosclerosis. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable analyzing the progression of atherosclerosis--the change in percent atheroma volume--was similar in the pactimibe and placebo groups (0.69 percent and 0.59 percent, respectively; P=0.77). However, both secondary efficacy variables assessed by means of intravascular ultrasonography showed unfavorable effects of pactimibe treatment. As compared with baseline values, the normalized total atheroma volume showed significant regression in the placebo group (-5.6 mm3, P=0.001) but not in the pactimibe group (-1.3 mm3, P=0.39; P=0.03 for the comparison between groups). The atheroma volume in the most diseased 10-mm subsegment regressed by 3.2 mm3 in the placebo group, as compared with a decrease of 1.3 mm3 in the pactimibe group (P=0.01). The combined incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes was similar in the two groups (P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with coronary disease, treatment with an ACAT inhibitor did not improve the primary efficacy variable (percent atheroma volume) and adversely affected two major secondary efficacy measures assessed by intravascular ultrasonography. ACAT inhibition is not an effective strategy for limiting atherosclerosis and may promote atherogenesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268515.).

Treatment of urogenital atrophy with low-dose estradiol: preliminary results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the lowest dosage of vaginally administered estradiol (E2) that reverses signs and symptoms of urogenital atrophy but does not substantially increase plasma E2 levels. DESIGN: Single-blind, single-arm study to determine the effects of de-escalating doses of vaginal estrogen on symptoms of urogenital atrophy, vaginal pH, and vaginal and urethral cytology. A questionnaire was used to assess subjective vaginal and urethral symptoms. Objective measurements included vaginal and urethral cytology, pH, endometrial biopsy, and 24-h circulating plasma luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), E2, and estrone levels obtained in a Clinical Research Unit. Circulating E2 levels were assayed with an ultrasensitive yeast bioassay with a detection limit of 0.02 pg/mL. Measurements were obtained over a 24-h period after administration of vehicle alone, on day 1 after the initial vaginal E2 dosage, after 3 weeks of daily E2 administration, and after an additional 9 weeks of twice weekly administration. RESULTS: From the first seven subjects studied at a 10-microg dose of E2, 100% responded according to predefined criteria. Vaginal cytology showed statistical improvement at 3 and 12 weeks. Urethral cytology was statistically improved after 12 weeks. Vaginal pH decreased from postmenopausal to premenopausal levels at both 3 and 12 weeks. Eighty-two percent of symptoms were cured or improved. Endometrium remained atrophic. Circulating E2 levels remained within the postmenopausal range of 3-10 pg/mL. CONCLUSION: A 10-microg dose of vaginal E2 effectively treated urogenital atrophy in seven women and did not cause endometrial hyperplasia or increase E2 levels.