Frank Ruschitzka1, Jeffrey S Borer2, Henry Krum, Andreas J Flammer1, Neville D Yeomans3, Peter Libby4, Thomas F Lüscher1, Daniel H Solomon4, M Elaine Husni5, David Y Graham6, Deborah A Davey7, Lisa M Wisniewski7, Venu Menon7, Rana Fayyad8, Bruce Beckerman8, Dinu Iorga8, A Michael Lincoff6, Steven E Nissen6. 1. Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Cardiovascular Medicine, Schiavone Cardiovascular Translational Research Institute, State University of New York, Downstate College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 3. Cardiovascular Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia. 4. Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Rheumatic and Immunologic Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Cardiovascular Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Department for Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. Cardiovascular Medicine, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
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. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
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. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Scott D Solomon; Marc A Pfeffer; John J V McMurray; Rob Fowler; Peter Finn; Bernard Levin; Craig Eagle; Ernest Hawk; Mariajosé Lechuga; Ann G Zauber; Monica M Bertagnolli; Nadir Arber; Janet Wittes Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James R Sowers; William B White; Bertram Pitt; Andrew Whelton; Lee S Simon; Nathaniel Winer; Alan Kivitz; Hein van Ingen; Thomas Brabant; John G Fort Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-01-24
Authors: Isabella Sudano; Andreas J Flammer; Daniel Périat; Frank Enseleit; Matthias Hermann; Mathias Wolfrum; Astrid Hirt; Priska Kaiser; David Hurlimann; Michel Neidhart; Steffen Gay; Johannes Holzmeister; Juerg Nussberger; Pavani Mocharla; Ulf Landmesser; Sarah R Haile; Roberto Corti; Paul M Vanhoutte; Thomas F Lüscher; Georg Noll; Frank Ruschitzka Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jules I Schwartz; Chau Thach; Kenneth C Lasseter; Jutta Miller; David Hreniuk; Deborah A Hilliard; Karen M Snyder; Barry J Gertz; Keith M Gottesdiener Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: J Polónia; I Boaventura; G Gama; I Camões; F Bernardo; P Andrade; J P Nunes; F Brandão; M Cerqueira-Gomes Journal: J Hypertens Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Matthew C Becker; Thomas H Wang; Lisa Wisniewski; Kathy Wolski; Peter Libby; Thomas F Lüscher; Jeffrey S Borer; Alice M Mascette; M Elaine Husni; Daniel H Solomon; David Y Graham; Neville D Yeomans; Henry Krum; Frank Ruschitzka; A Michael Lincoff; Steven E Nissen Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-02-25 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Iain M MacIntyre; Emma J Turtle; Tariq E Farrah; Catriona Graham; James W Dear; David J Webb Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Vesna D Garovic; Ralf Dechend; Thomas Easterling; S Ananth Karumanchi; Suzanne McMurtry Baird; Laura A Magee; Sarosh Rana; Jane V Vermunt; Phyllis August Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 9.897
Authors: Robert M Carey; David A Calhoun; George L Bakris; Robert D Brook; Stacie L Daugherty; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Brent M Egan; John M Flack; Samuel S Gidding; Eric Judd; Daniel T Lackland; Cheryl L Laffer; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven M Smith; Sandra J Taler; Stephen C Textor; Tanya N Turan; William B White Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Preeti Kanikarla-Marie; Michael Lam; Alexey V Sorokin; Michael J Overman; Scott Kopetz; David G Menter Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 6.244