Dataset Information

Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Design

Network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data.

Study selection

All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility.

Data extraction

The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data.

Data synthesis

31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death.

Conclusions

Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

SUBMITTER: Trelle S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3019238 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used as first-line treatment of primary dysmenorrhea, but there has been no optimal clinical choice among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs yet. The present study was to assess the relative benefits of different common non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for primary dysmenorrhea patients with a network meta-analysis. Methods Randomized controlled trials were screened by our criteria and included in the network meta-analysis. Pain relief was considered as primary outcomes and adverse effect was supplied as a safety outcome, while additional rescue, assessment score, and pain intensity difference were secondary outcomes. All the indexes were evaluated with odds ratio or standardized mean difference. Surface under cumulative ranking curve result was used to calculate the ranking of each treatment. Results Totally, 72 randomized controlled trials of 5723 patients and 13 drugs were included in our study after screening. As for pain relief, all drugs except nimesulide, rofecoxib, and waldecoxib were superior to aspirin (odds ratio with 95% credible intervals, diclofenac: 0.28 (0.08, 0.86), flurbiprofen: 0.10 (0.03, 0.29), ibuprofen: 0.32 (0.14, 0.73), indomethacin: 0.21 (0.07, 0.58), ketoprofen: 0.25 (0.10, 0.64), mefenamic acid: 0.28 (0.09, 0.87), naproxen: 0.31 (0.15, 0.64), piroxicam: 0.15 (0.03, 0.59), and tiaprofenic acid: 0.17 (0.04, 0.63)). Aspirin also required additional rescue when compared with the majority of other drugs (flurbiprofen: 3.46 (1.15, 11.25), ibuprofen: 6.30 (2.08, 20.09), mefenamic acid: 7.32 (1.51, 37.71), naproxen: 2.66 (1.17, 6.55), and tiaprofenic acid: 9.58 (1.43, 94.63)). As for assessment of the whole treatment, ketoprofen, naproxen, rofecoxib, and ibuprofen got higher score significantly than placebo. In addition, ibuprofen performed better than placebo in pain intensity difference. Considering the safety, tiaprofenic acid and mefenamic acid were noticeable in low risk, and indomethacin revealed higher risk than any other drugs. According to the results of network analysis and surface under cumulative ranking curve, flurbiprofen was considered to be the best one among all the treatments in efficacy, and aspirin was worse than most of others. On the other hand, tiaprofenic acid and mefenamic acid were indicated as the safest drugs. Conclusion Considering the efficacy and safety, we recommended flurbiprofen and tiaprofenic acid as the optimal treatments for primary dysmenorrhea.

Project description:Background: Epidemiological evidences regarding the association between the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the risk of prostate cancer (PC) is still controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the controversy that exists. Methods: Electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, BIOSIS, Scopus, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG, and CQVIP were used to search for and identify eligible studies published until December 31, 2017. Pooled effect estimates for the relative risk (RR) were computed through fixed-effects or random-effects models as appropriate. Publication bias was evaluated by Egger's and Begg's tests and potential sources of heterogeneity were investigated in subgroup analyses. Results: A total of 43 observational studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. A protective effect was identified for the intake of any NSAIDs on the risk of PC (pooled RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.81-0.98). Moreover, the long-term intake of NSAIDs (?5 years rather than ?4 years) was associated with reduced PC incidence (pooled RR = 0.882, 95% CI = 0.785-0.991). Aspirin intake was also associated with a 7.0% risk reduction of PC (pooled RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.89-0.96). The inverse association became stronger for advanced PC and PC with a Gleason score ?7 compared to the association with total PC. Interestingly, it was the daily dose (?1 pill/day) rather than, long-term aspirin intake (?4 or ?5 years) that was associated with reduced PC incidence (pooled RR = 0.875, 95% CI = 0.792-0.967). The pooled effects for non-aspirin NSAIDs demonstrated no significantly adverse or beneficial effects on total PC, advanced PC, or PC with Gleason score ?7, though all pooled RRs were >1. Conclusions: Our findings suggested a protective effect of the intake of any NSAIDs on the risk of PC, especially in those who took the NSAIDs for a long period. Moreover, aspirin intake was also associated with a decreased risk of PC, and there was a dose related association between aspirin intake and the risk of PC, while no significant effects of long-term aspirin intake were found on the PC incidence.

Project description:BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.Search methodsWe searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaThe inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.Data collection and analysisWe identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.Main resultsAs a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.Authors' conclusionsNSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.