Demographics and distribution of australia's medical immigrant workforce.

Background: International medical graduates (IMGs) have made important contributions to Australian healthcare since colonization. Recent published data have documented source countries and characteristics of IMGs undertaking the examinations of the Australian Medical Council. However, information about those currently practicing in Australia is limited. Objective: To analyze a cross section of IMGs currently practicing in Australia to determine patterns of change in donor countries, other demographic characteristics, geographical locations, and their areas of specialization. Methods: A random sample of all practitioners on a national database was interrogated for their country of first medical qualification. Those who qualified outside Australia were then analyzed for demographic variables such as age, gender, country of origin, and years of graduation and immigration. Their practice locations were matched to the Australian Bureau of Statistics geographical framework, and their specialties compared with those of a random sample of graduates from Australian medical schools. Results: Over the approximately 60 years since those surveyed arrived in Australia, IMGs' countries/regions of origin have changed from mainly the UK and Ireland to Southern Asia, in line with demographic changes in Australia as a whole. Most arrived soon after graduation, and IMGs are twice IMGs as likely as local graduates to be working in a rural area of workforce shortage. Compared with local graduates, significantly more IMGs are working in general practice. Conclusions: IMGs currently practicing in Australia make up a substantial proportion of the workforce and are more likely than local graduates to provide health services in regional and remote areas.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: sirolimus- or everolimus-based immunosuppression following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Calcineurin-inhibitor immunosuppressants (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) have been associated with an exposure-related increase in tumour recurrence following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Conversely, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) have been suggested to reduce recurrence rates and improve survival in this patient group. AIM: To clarify the potential benefit of mTOR-inhibitors in HCC transplant patients by comparing recurrence and survival outcomes with calcineurin-inhibitor-based immunosuppression. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The inclusion criteria were observational or interventional studies reporting the effect of early-initiated (<6 months post-transplant) mTOR-inhibitor-based immunosuppression on survival or tumour recurrence in patients transplanted with HCC, compared to a control of calcineurin-inhibitor-based therapy. RESULTS: Meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with calcineurin-inhibitor controls, recurrence-free-survival was significantly increased with mTOR-inhibitor-based therapy at 1-year (Risk-Ratio (RR): 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18) and 3-years (RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.01-1.21) post-transplant, with a nonsignificant increase at 5-years (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.99-1.35). Overall survival was improved at 1-year (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.12), 3-years (RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.02-1.19), and 5-years (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08-1.29). Recurrence-rate was lower in the mTOR-inhibitor arm (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.82), with no significant increase in acute rejection (RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.94-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: mTOR-inhibitor-based immunosuppression may be a preferable option in patients transplanted with HCC. It improves recurrence-free-survival over at least three years and reduces the recurrence rate compared with standard calcineurin-inhibitor-based therapy, with no significant increase in the rate of acute rejection. Future research should clarify the effect in higher vs lower risk cohorts.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Optimal Salvage Therapy in Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is an effective salvage therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis; however, the optimal dosing strategy is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the impact of infliximab dosage and intensification on colectomy-free survival in acute severe ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Studies reporting outcomes of hospitalized steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab salvage were identified. Infliximab use was categorized by dose, dose number, and schedule. The primary outcome was colectomy-free survival at 3 months. Pooled proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: Forty-one cohorts (n = 2158 cases) were included. Overall colectomy-free survival with infliximab salvage was 79.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.48% to 83.6%) at 3 months and 69.8% (95% CI, 65.7% to 73.7%) at 12 months. Colectomy-free survival at 3 months was superior with 5-mg/kg multiple (≥2) doses compared with single-dose induction (odds ratio [OR], 4.24; 95% CI, 2.44 to 7.36; P < 0.001). However, dose intensification with either high-dose or accelerated strategies was not significantly different to 5-mg/kg standard induction at 3 months (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.27; P = 0.24) despite being utilized in patients with a significantly higher mean C-reactive protein and lower albumin levels. CONCLUSIONS: In acute severe ulcerative colitis, multiple 5-mg/kg infliximab doses are superior to single-dose salvage. Dose-intensified induction outcomes were not significantly different compared to standard induction and were more often used in patients with increased disease severity, which may have confounded the results. This meta-analysis highlights the marked variability in the management of infliximab salvage therapy and the need for further studies to determine the optimal dose strategy.

Helicobacter pylori and low-dose aspirin ulcer risk: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Owing to wide-spread use, low-dose aspirin (LDA) produces a substantial amount of peptic ulcer disease. Current guidelines are ambivalent about the need for Helicobacter pylori eradication to protect against LDA ulcers. This study aimed to determine, through meta-analysis, if (and by how much) infection alters the baseline risk of peptic ulcers during LDA therapy. METHODS: Literature screening was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to May 2018. Original studies reporting prevalence or incidence of uncomplicated ulcers in LDA users were included. Ulcer endpoints needed to be specified separately, according to H. pylori infection status. Meta-analysis was performed in MIX 2.0 Pro. RESULTS: Ten cross-sectional studies and seven randomized controlled trials were included (n = 5964). The pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the risk of LDA ulcers in H. pylori-positive versus H. pylori-negative individuals were 1.68 (95%CI 1.40-2.02) and 1.65 (95%CI 1.29-2.08) under fixed-effects and random-effects models, respectively. Heterogeneity among studies was minimal (I2  = 26.9%). After adjusting for the protective effects of antisecretory drugs, the odds ratios increased to 1.94 (95%CI 1.54-2.46). CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that H. pylori increases the risk of LDA ulcers by almost 70% in a population where some were taking proton pump inhibitors and/or other acid suppressants. Without antisecretory drugs, the risk almost doubles. Clinically, these findings may support the use of a test-and-treat approach to H. pylori in LDA users, particularly those already at higher risk of developing peptic ulcers.

The potential benefits of aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention in rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of the PRECISION Trial.

Objective: Guidelines exist for the use of low-dose aspirin in the general population for primary cardiovascular (CV) prevention, but the risk-benefit considerations may differ in RA. While RA confers an increased CV risk, such patients more likely use NSAIDs and corticosteroids. Methods: We conducted a cohort study to assess potential risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin. We estimated incidence rates and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression among subjects with RA but no known CV disease in the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen trial. The primary exposure of interest was low-dose aspirin, and all enrolled patients were provided open-label esomeprazole. The primary composite outcome was major NSAID toxicity, including major adverse CV event (MACE), clinically significant gastrointestinal events, renal events and all-cause mortality. Results: We found 1852 subjects with RA in Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen without known CV disease; 540 reported using low-dose aspirin for CV prevention and 1312 did not. Any major NSAID toxicity was observed in 79 (6.0%) non-aspirin users and 37 (6.9%) aspirin users (P = 0.50). Aspirin users experienced all components of the primary outcome at a similar rate to non-users. In fully adjusted models, the risk for major NSAID toxicity was similar between aspirin exposure groups (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.69). The risk for MACE was also similar between exposure groups in age- and gender-adjusted models (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.72, 2.10). Conclusion: RA patients using low-dose aspirin with chronic NSAIDs and esomeprazole had a similar risk of major NSAID toxicity and MACE as patients who did not.

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.

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 .).

Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor α Therapies and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Pregnancy Outcomes: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly affects women during their reproductive years, leading to concerns regarding pregnancy outcomes and therapeutic safety. The aim of this study was to assess the risks associated with anti-tumour necrosis factor α (anti-TNFα) therapy for pregnancy outcomes, including rates of congenital abnormality, based on published studies. METHODS: Published studies were screened from on-line databases and international meeting abstracts. A meta-analysis was performed for adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs), congenital abnormalities (CAs), preterm birth (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW). The prevalence of CAs was compared with whole-population pooled registry data. RESULTS: In women exposed to anti-TNFα the pooled odds ratio for APOs was 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.78; p = 0.55) compared with disease-matched controls. The pooled odds ratios for CAs, PTB and LBW were 0.89 (0.37-2.13; p = 0.79), 1.21 (0.74-2.00; p = 0.45) and 1.36 (0.77-2.38; p = 0.29) respectively. The rate of CAs in TNFα-exposed women was not statistically different from that in population-wide registries (difference 0.4%, 95% CI -2.0 to +2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNFα therapy does not increase the risk of APOs, CAs, PTB or LBW compared with disease-matched controls. Furthermore, the risk of CAs is not increased when published prevalence data are compared with data for the general population. These findings may offer some reassurance for women and physicians regarding the safety profile of anti-TNFα during pregnancy in IBD.

Incretin-based therapies for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a leading cause of chronic liver disease in Western societies. Despite its significance, there are no well-proven pharmacological treatments. Two novel classes of potential pharmacotherapies are the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4I), collectively known as incretin-based therapies. These have several metabolic and anti-inflammatory actions that may be of benefit in NAFLD. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate their efficacy via a structured retrieval and pooled analysis of relevant studies. METHODS: Studies were sourced from electronic databases and meeting abstracts. Main inclusion criteria were original studies investigating treatment of adults with NAFLD using GLP-1 RA/DPP-4I. Key outcomes were a change in serum alanine transaminase (ALT), as a marker of liver inflammation, and improvement in disease status measured by imaging or histology. RESULTS: Initial searching retrieved 1357 peer-reviewed articles and abstracts. Four studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were a total of 136 participants with NAFLD and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Meta-analysis (random-effects model) revealed a significant decrease in serum ALT following treatment (mean reduction 14.1 IU/L, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 8.3-19.8, P < 0.0001). In two studies with imaging and tissue data, treatment was found to significantly reduce steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis. CONCLUSION: The significant decrease in a key biochemical marker of hepatic inflammation following treatment with incretin-based therapies, as well as improvements in imaging and histology, suggests these agents may be effective options for managing NAFLD with comorbid T2DM.

Consensus about managing gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?

In a recently published article in BMC Medicine, Scarpignato and colleagues present the results of a consensus conference that addressed several aspects of the management of pain in patients with osteoarthritis. The main areas covered include the relative safety in regard to gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events of non-selective 'traditional' non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus cyclooxygenase-2 selective NSAIDs. The role of co-therapy with proton pump inhibitors in enhancing gastrointestinal safety is also reviewed. This commentary focuses on two areas that the consensus conference addressed, i) the whole length of gastrointestinal tract risk profile of the various NSAIDs (not just the ulcer risks in stomach and duodenum); ii) more recent information, but still some uncertainties, about the cardiovascular risks associated with the two classes of NSAID in general, and naproxen in particular. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0285-8.

Impact of concomitant low-dose aspirin on the safety and tolerability of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets in patients requiring chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy: an analysis from 5 Phase III studies.

Patients receiving chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and concomitant low-dose aspirin (LDA) are at increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated (EC) naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium (NAP/ESO) has been designed to deliver a proton-pump inhibitor followed by an NSAID in a single tablet. To examine safety data from 5 Phase III studies of NAP/ESO in LDA users (≤ 325 mg daily, administered at any time during the study), and LDA non-users, data were analyzed from 6-month studies assessing NAP/ESO versus EC naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 2), 3-month studies assessing NAP/ESO vs celecoxib or placebo in patients with knee osteoarthritis (n = 2), and a 12-month, open-label, safety study of NAP/ESO (n = 1). In an analysis of two studies, incidences of endoscopically confirmed gastric ulcers (GUs) and duodenal ulcers (DUs) were summarized by LDA subgroups. In the pooled analysis from all five studies, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (including prespecified NSAID-associated upper GI AEs and cardiovascular AEs), serious AEs, and AE-related discontinuations were stratified by LDA subgroups. Overall, 2,317 patients received treatment; 1,157 patients received NAP/ESO and, of these, 298 received LDA. The cumulative incidence of GUs and DUs in the two studies with 6-month follow-up was lower for NAP/ESO vs EC naproxen in both LDA subgroups [GUs: 3.0 vs 27.9%, respectively, for LDA users, 6.4 vs 22.4%, respectively, for LDA non-users (both P < 0.001); DUs: 1.0 vs 5.8% for LDA users, 0.6 vs 5.3% for LDA non-users]. The incidence of erosive gastritis was lower in NAP/ESO- vs EC naproxen-treated patients for both LDA users [18.2 vs 36.5%, respectively (P = 0.004)] and LDA non-users [19.8 vs 38.5%, respectively (P < 0.001)]. Among LDA users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 16.1%; EC naproxen, 31.7%; celecoxib, 22.1%; placebo, 23.2%. Among LDA non-users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 20. %; EC naproxen, 36.6%; celecoxib, 18.5%; placebo, 18.9%. For LDA users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 3.0%; EC naproxen, 1.0%; celecoxib, 0%; placebo, 0%. For LDA non-users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 1.0%; EC naproxen, 0.6%; celecoxib, 0.3%; placebo, 0%. NAP/ESO appears to be well-tolerated in patients receiving concomitant LDA. For LDA users, AE incidence was less than that observed for EC naproxen. For most AE categories, incidences were similar among NAP/ESO, celecoxib and placebo groups. The safety of NAP/ESO appeared similar regardless of LDA use.