Literature DB >> 12832706

Comparison of the incidence rates of thromboembolic events reported for patients prescribed rofecoxib and meloxicam in general practice in England using prescription-event monitoring (PEM) data.

D Layton1, E Heeley, K Hughes, S A W Shakir.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib and meloxicam are classified as cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitors. The Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) monitored the post-marketing safety of these drugs in England using the non-interventional observational cohort technique of prescription-event monitoring (PEM).
OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence rates of selected thromboembolic (TE)(cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peripheral venous thrombotic) events reported for patients prescribed rofecoxib and meloxicam in general practice.
METHODS: Patients were identified from dispensed prescriptions written by general practitioners (GPs) for meloxicam (December 1996 to March 1997) and rofecoxib (July to November 1999). Simple questionnaires requesting details of events recorded during/after treatment, indication and potential risk factors (including age, sex and NSAIDs prescribed within 3 months of treatment) were posted to prescribing GPs approximately 9 months after the first prescription for each patient. Incidence rates of the first event within each TE group were calculated; crude and age- and sex-adjusted rate ratios (RR) obtained using regression modelling.
RESULTS: During the 9 months after starting treatment, 21 (0.14%) and 19 (0.10%) patients were reported to have cardiovascular TE events, and 74 (0.48%) and 52 (0.27%) cerebrovascular TE events, and 6 (0.05%) and 20 (0.10%) were reported to have peripheral venous thrombotic events for rofecoxib and meloxicam, respectively. Regarding time to first event, there was a persistent divergence between the two drugs from the start of treatment for both the cerebrovascular TE event group (log rank test P = 0.0063) and the peripheral venous thrombotic event group (log rank test P = 0.0264). Indication and use of a NSAID within 3 months prior to starting treatment had no statistically significant effect on the relative risk estimates of the event groups and was excluded from subsequent analyses. Adjusting for the two identified risk factors of age (age2) and sex, for rofecoxib the adjusted cerebrovascular TE event group rate was higher than for meloxicam [RR 1.68 (95% CI 1.15, 2.46)]; lower than meloxicam for the peripheral venous thrombotic event group [RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.11, 0.78)], and not different for the cardiovascular TE event group [RR 1.38 (95% CI 0.71, 2.67)].
CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a relative increase in the rate of cerebrovascular TE events and a relative reduction in peripheral venous thrombotic events in users of rofecoxib compared with meloxicam. There was no difference in the rate of cardiovascular thromboembolic events. The incidence of these three groups of events reported in each of these two drug cohorts was low (less than 0.5%), therefore the relevance of our findings needs to be taken into consideration with other clinical and pharmacoepidemiological studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12832706     DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg379

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)        ISSN: 1462-0324            Impact factor:   7.580


  10 in total

1.  A comparison of reported gastrointestinal and thromboembolic events between rofecoxib and celecoxib using observational data.

Authors:  Rachna Kasliwal; Deborah Layton; Scott Harris; Lynda Wilton; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Novel contraceptive targets to inhibit ovulation: the prostaglandin E2 pathway.

Authors:  Diane M Duffy
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 15.610

Review 3.  The effect of COX-2-selective meloxicam on the myocardial, vascular and renal risks: a systematic review.

Authors:  Waheed Asghar; Fakhreddin Jamali
Journal:  Inflammopharmacology       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 4.473

4.  Safety profile of celecoxib as used in general practice in England: results of a prescription-event monitoring study.

Authors:  Deborah Layton; Lynda V Wilton; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 5.  Do some inhibitors of COX-2 increase the risk of thromboembolic events?: Linking pharmacology with pharmacoepidemiology.

Authors:  David W J Clark; Deborah Layton; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 6.  Benefit-risk assessment of rofecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Helmut Schmidt; Barry G Woodcock; Gerd Geisslinger
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Was the thrombotic risk of rofecoxib predictable from the French Pharmacovigilance Database before 30 September 2004?

Authors:  A Sommet; S Grolleau; H Bagheri; M Lapeyre-Mestre; J L Montastruc
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-05-29       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 8.  Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis.

Authors:  S E Garner; D D Fidan; R Frankish; L Maxwell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2005-01-25

9.  Meloxicam versus Celecoxib for Postoperative Analgesia after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Safety, Efficacy and Cost.

Authors:  Amer Haffar; Yale A Fillingham; Leigham Breckenridge; D'Andrew Gursay; Jess H Lonner
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2022-04-05

Review 10.  Information about ADRs explored by pharmacovigilance approaches: a qualitative review of studies on antibiotics, SSRIs and NSAIDs.

Authors:  Lise Aagaard; Ebba Holme Hansen
Journal:  BMC Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-03-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.