Risk of cardiovascular events and celecoxib: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.12). 04/2006; 99(3):132-40. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.3.132
Source: PubMed


To examine whether the increased risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib represents a class effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized double-blind clinical trials of celecoxib of at least 6 weeks' duration and presented data on serious cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Data sources included six bibliographic databases, the relevant files of the United States Food and Drug Administration, and pharmaceutical company websites.
Pooled fixed effects estimates of the odds ratios for risk of cardiovascular events with celecoxib compared with comparator treatment were calculated using the inverse variance weight method. The main outcome measure was myocardial infarction.
Four placebo-controlled trials with 4422 patients were included in the primary meta-analysis comparing celecoxib with placebo. The odds ratio of myocardial infarction with celecoxib compared to placebo was 2.26 (95%confidence interval 1.0 to 5.1). For composite cardiovascular events [odd ratio 1.38 (95% CI 0.91 to 2.10)], cardiovascular deaths [OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.38 to 2.95)] and stroke [OR 1.0(95% CI 0.51 to 1.84)] there was no significant increase in risk with celecoxib. The secondary meta-analysis which included a total of six studies (with placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and paracetamol as comparators) of 12 780 patients, showed similar findings with a significant increased risk with celecoxib for myocardial infarction [OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.15 to 3.08)] but not other outcome measures.
The available data indicate an increased risk of myocardial infarction with celecoxib therapy, consistent with a class effect for COX-2 specific inhibitors.

Download full-text


Available from: Mark Weatherall,
  • Source
    • "The equipotent dose for the treatment of acute pain is 400 mg of celecoxib/50 mg of rofecoxib. This would explain the differences between COX-2/COX-1 selectivity, and the differences found in the incidence of cardiovascular adverse effects, which are greater for rofecoxib [19] [20]. The decision to withdraw this drug from the US market in September 2004 was based on a three year controlled clinical trial on the prevention of adenomatous polyposis, in which an increased relative risk of cardiovascular effects such as ischemia or myocardial infarction was found in patients who were on treatment for more than 18 months. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Just as pain is a symptom with multifarious causes, many approaches can be taken to its management. Once a correct diagnosis has been made, treatment of pain may be chosen from among drug therapy, surgical or other intervention, nerve stimulation, radio waves, physical manipulation, lifestyle changes, psychological and alternative approaches. Thus, medical practitioners involved in assisting patients to manage their pain come from a broad range of fields including clinical psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, anesthesiologists, neurologists, physiatrists, psychiatrists and professionals involved in the palliative care of patients. This book seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic of pain management. In so doing, it will act as a resource for students, physicians and other health care professionals, as well as those requiring information in order to better understand their options regarding management of their own pain or that of family members in their care.
    Pain Management, Edited by Gabor Racz, 05/2014: chapter Multimodal Analgesia for the management of postoperative pain: pages 1-42; In Tech Open Access Publisher., ISBN: 980-953-307-1133-0
  • Source
    • "The publications showed that celecoxib induced fewer gastrointestinal ulcers than its competitors, but it was later revealed that the trials ran for longer than 6 months, and analyses done according to the trial protocol showed no advantage of celecoxib [34]. Despite the fact that only 16 out of at least 27 trials of celecoxib were included in the relevant FDA reports [36], independent researchers who had access to FDA data nevertheless substantiated the cardiovascular harms of celecoxib [37]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Calls for data sharing have mostly been restricted to publicly-funded research, but I argue that the distinction between publicly-funded and industry-funded research is an artificial and irrelevant one, as the interests of the patients must override commercial interests. I also argue why it is a moral imperative to render all results from all trials involving humans, also healthy volunteers, publicly available. Respect for trial participants who often run a personal and unknown risk by participating in trials requires that they - and therefore also the society at large that they represent - be seen as the ultimate owners of trial data. Data sharing would lead to tremendous benefits for patients, progress in science, and rational use of healthcare resources based on evidence we can trust. The harmful consequences are minor compared to the benefits. It has been amply documented that the current situation, with selective reporting of favorable research and biased data analyses being the norm rather than the exception, is harmful to patients and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients that could have been avoided. National and supranational legislation is needed to make data sharing happen as guidelines and other voluntary agreements do not work. I propose the contents of such legislation and of appropriate sanctions to hold accountable those who refuse to share their data.
    Trials 11/2011; 12(1):249. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-12-249 · 1.73 Impact Factor

Show more