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

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Pub Date : 2006-03-01 DOI:10.1258/JRSM.99.3.132
B. Caldwell, S. Aldington, M. Weatherall, P. Shirtcliffe, R. Beasley
{"title":"Risk of cardiovascular events and celecoxib: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"B. Caldwell, S. Aldington, M. Weatherall, P. Shirtcliffe, R. Beasley","doi":"10.1258/JRSM.99.3.132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nTo examine whether the increased risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib represents a class effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors.\n\n\nDESIGN\nSystematic 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.\n\n\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\nPooled 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.\n\n\nRESULTS\nFour 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.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe available data indicate an increased risk of myocardial infarction with celecoxib therapy, consistent with a class effect for COX-2 specific inhibitors.","PeriodicalId":17271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine","volume":"3 1","pages":"132-40"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"187","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/JRSM.99.3.132","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 187

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To examine whether the increased risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib represents a class effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors. DESIGN 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSION The available data indicate an increased risk of myocardial infarction with celecoxib therapy, consistent with a class effect for COX-2 specific inhibitors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心血管事件和塞来昔布的风险:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的研究罗非昔布增加心血管事件风险是否代表环氧化酶-2 (COX-2)特异性抑制剂的一类效应。设计对塞来昔布持续至少6周的随机双盲临床试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,并提供严重心血管血栓栓塞事件的数据。数据来源包括6个书目数据库、美国食品和药物管理局的相关文件和制药公司网站。主要结局测量:使用反方差加权法计算塞来昔布与对照治疗相比心血管事件风险的固定效应估计值。主要结局指标为心肌梗死。结果4个安慰剂对照试验4422例患者被纳入了比较塞来昔布和安慰剂的主要荟萃分析。与安慰剂相比,塞来昔布心肌梗死的优势比为2.26(95%可信区间为1.0 - 5.1)。对于复合心血管事件[奇比1.38 (95% CI 0.91至2.10)]、心血管死亡[OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.38至2.95)]和卒中[OR 1.0(95% CI 0.51至1.84)],塞来昔布的风险没有显著增加。次要荟萃分析共包括6项研究(以安慰剂、双氯芬酸、布洛芬和扑热息痛作为比较),共纳入12780例患者,结果显示塞来昔布显著增加心肌梗死风险[OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.15至3.08)],但没有其他结局指标。结论:现有数据表明,塞来昔布治疗心肌梗死的风险增加,与COX-2特异性抑制剂的一类效应一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
3.50%
发文量
107
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since 1809, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (JRSM) has been a trusted source of information in the medical field. Our publication covers a wide range of topics, including evidence-based reviews, original research papers, commentaries, and personal perspectives. As an independent scientific and educational journal, we strive to foster constructive discussions on vital clinical matters. While we are based in the UK, our articles address issues that are globally relevant and of interest to healthcare professionals worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Intentions and actions towards leaving healthcare work since COVID-19: group-based trajectory analyses in the UK-REACH cohort. International medical graduates: a workforce at a crossroad? Re: Interpretation of neuropsychiatric outcomes in trials of hypoglycaemic agents. The value of a good doctor. The problematic history of randomised controlled trials Part 3: Mainland, Hill and the future of RCTs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1