* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download COX-2-selective NSAIDs: New wonder drugs?
Adherence (medicine) wikipedia , lookup
Discovery and development of ACE inhibitors wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacognosy wikipedia , lookup
Discovery and development of direct thrombin inhibitors wikipedia , lookup
Clinical trial wikipedia , lookup
Pharmaceutical industry wikipedia , lookup
Drug interaction wikipedia , lookup
Neuropsychopharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Neuropharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Discovery and development of proton pump inhibitors wikipedia , lookup
Psychopharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Prescription costs wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Theralizumab wikipedia , lookup
Discovery and development of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors wikipedia , lookup
Document1 1/9/00 4:56 PM Page 1 COX-2-selective NSAIDs: New wonder drugs? National Prescribing Service ACN 082 034 393 Level 1/ 31 Buckingham Street, Surry Hills 2010 Phone: 02 9699 4499 l Fax: 02 9699 5155 l email: [email protected] COX-2-selective NSAIDs: New wonder drugs? 1. Introduction Aspirin and other non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most widely used classes of drugs, with both prescription and over the counter sales of the agents contributing to total usage. NSAIDs are believed to act through inhibition of prostaglandin (PG) synthesis secondary to their inhibition of the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX). This results in suppression of inflammation, and effective analgesia. Most NSAIDs not only inhibit PGs at sites of inflammation, but also PGs which serve important functions in other parts of the body, a factor which accounts for some of the toxicity of these agents. The most frequent complications associated with NSAID usage are those involving the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). GI bleeding, ulceration and perforation are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who are treated with these agents. A new approach to avoiding NSAID-induced complications became feasible with the discovery that there are 2 isoforms of COX, COX-1 and COX-2. These enzymes are under distinct regulatory control mechanisms. COX-1 is constitutively expressed in most tissues, and plays a major role in normal functioning of the GIT, kidneys and platelets. In contrast, COX-2 is expressed primarily in response to inflammation, but to some extent in other tissues including kidneys and brain. Traditional NSAIDs are non-selective and inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, providing benefits in inflammation, but at the cost of potential adverse effects. Recently, two COX-2-selective NSAIDs have been approved by the TGA, celecoxib (Celebrex®) and rofecoxib (Vioxx®). Celecoxib, the first of these drugs to become available, is one of the best selling new drugs to be marketed in the USA. It is likely that these agents will be covered by the PBS in the year 2000. Both drugs are being aggressively marketed by the pharmaceutical industry, however there is limited clinical experience, and monitoring adverse events in patients is a priority for clinicians who prescribe these agents. This document provides a review of the physiology and pharmacology of the COX system, and published studies and clinical trials which have investigated the COX-2-selective NSAIDs. 2. Physiology and pharmacology of the COX metabolites. 2.1 Biosynthesis of prostaglandins The eicosanoids are autacoids (locally acting hormones) derived from arachidonic acid. They comprise prostaglandins (PGs), thromboxanes (TXs) and leukotrienes (LTs). The PGs and TXs are products of the cyclooxygenase (COX) pathway and are known as prostanoids. The leukotrienes are byproducts of the 5-lipoxygenase pathway. Arachidonic acid is a component of cell membranes, which is mainly released from membrane phospholipids by the enzyme phospholipase A2. Many stimuli can liberate arachidonate, although this differs according to cell type. Examples are thrombin in platelets, C5a in neutrophils and antigen-antibody reactions in mast cells. Cellular damage, or influx of calcium into most cells will also activate phospholipases. Liberation of free arachidonate is the rate determining step in the synthesis of PGs, TXs and LTs. COX or prostaglandin H2 synthase catalyses the first two steps in the biosynthesis of the PGs from the substrate arachidonic acid. These are the oxidation and cyclisation of the unesterified arachidonic acid to the hydroperoxy endoperoxide PGG2, followed by its subsequent reduction to PGH2.1 PGH2 in turn serves as a substrate for cell specific isomerases which produce a variety of biologically active products (See Figure 1) Figure 1. Synthesis of the clinically relevant prostaglandins and thromboxanes from arachidonic acid. The half-lives of most PGs in the serum are less than one minute. High concentrations of PGinactivating enzymes are present in the lung, and 95% of PGE2 and PGF2 are inactivated on first passage. PGI2 (Prostacyclin) is not taken up into the lung, but is hydrolysed nonenzymatically (t1/2 =3 minutes) to the inactive 6-keto-PGF1. TXA2 (Thromboxane A2) has a half-life of 30 seconds, and breaks down nonenzymatically into the stable but inactive TXB2.2 In healthy individuals, PG mediate a range of normal biological functions including gastric protection, renal homeostasis, vascular homeostasis, uterine function, embryo implantation and labour, regulation of the sleep wake cycle, body temperature and inflammation (Table 1). Although most tissues are able to synthesise the intermediate PGH2 from free arachidonic acid, the biologically active PGs synthesised varies in each tissue and depends on the complement of enzymes that are present and their relative abundance. For example, lung and spleen are able to synthesise a whole range of biologically active prostanoids, but the principal enzyme metabolising PGH2 in platelets is thromboxane synthetase, while endothelial cells contain primarily prostacyclin synthase.2, 3 Prostanoid receptors are all G-protein linked, and their stimulation activates distinct cell-signalling pathways.3 Five main prostanoid receptors have been defined and cloned. These have been termed DP-, FP-, EP- TP- and IP-receptors and are the ligands for the natural prostenoids PGD2, PGF2, PGE2, TXA2 and PGI2 respectively. EP-receptors can be divided into four subtypes, EP1 to EP4.4 Table 1. Physiologic Functions of Prostaglandins (From Kaplan-Machlis et al, 19995). Physiologic Function Relax vascular smooth muscle Promote platelet aggregation Inhibit platelet aggregation Relax bronchial smooth muscle Contract bronchial smooth muscle Increase renal blood flow Protect gastric mucosa Contract uterine smooth muscle Relax uterine smooth muscle Regulation of the sleep/wake cycle Prostaglandin(s) Involved PGE2, PGF2, PGI2 TXA2 PGI2 PGE2, PGI2 PGF2 PGE2, PGI2 PGE2, PGI2 PGE2, PGF2 PGI2 PGD2 2.2 Comparisons between COX-1 and COX-2 2.2.1 COX regulation and biology In 1990 it was reported that stimulation of human monocytes with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) resulted in a substantial increase in the activity of COX, but did not change the activities of phospholipase or 5-lipoxygenase.6 It was also observed that dexamethasone could inhibit LPSinduced increases in COX activity of macrophages, but did not affect basal production of prostaglandins.7 These results led the investigators to postulate the existence of an ‘inducible’ form of COX which could be upregulated by inflammatory stimuli such as cytokines. This inducible enzyme (COX-2) was cloned in 1991. COX-1 is the constitutive form of the enzyme which is expressed in nearly all cell types throughout the body at a constant level. It’s expression can increase 2- to 4- fold under stimulatory conditions and it is not appreciably affected by glucocorticoids. In contrast, COX-2 is an immediate early gene product. It’s expression is rapidly upregulated by a variety of inflammatory stimuli including proinflammatory cytokines (eg. interleukin (IL)-1, IL-2 and tumour necrosis factor- (TNF-)) bacterial lipopolysaccharide, mitogens and reactive oxygen intermediates. These stimuli can upregulate COX-2 in macrophages, monocytes, synoviocytes, chondrocytes, fibroblasts and endothelial cells 10- to 80- fold.8-10 COX-2 is not commonly found in differentiated cells under normal physiological conditions, but it has been constitutively found in the kidney,11 vasculature,12 brain,13, 14 ovary, uterus (associated with embryo implantation), cartilage and bone.15 2.3 Basis of inhibitor selectivity Differences between COX-1 and COX-2 are summarised in table 2. Although the genes of both isoforms are different, COX-1 and COX-2 have similar structures and catalytic activities. The amino acid sequences for the substrate binding and catalytic sites are almost identical, but COX-2 has valine substituted for isoleucine at positions 434 and 523.16, 17 Valine is smaller than isoleucine by a methyl group. These substitutions result in a larger and more flexible substrate channel and a secondary internal pocket off the inhibitor binding site of COX-2 which is not observed in COX-1. COX-2 selective inhibitors have structures which occupy this additional pocket (See Figure 2). Figure 2. A single amino acid substitution is responsible for inhibitor selectivity. Larger COX inhibitors cannot occupy the active site of COX-1 since the internal side pocket is not present. (Figure reprinted with permission from Hawkey, C. J. 1999. COX-2 inhibitors. The Lancet. 353: 307-14.18 © The Lancet Ltd.) Table 2. Summary of the structure, distribution and regulation of COX-1 and COX-2 (From Brooks, P. 199919). cDNA mRNA Protein Differences Regulation Tissue Expression COX-1 COX-2 Chromosome 9; 22kB Chromosome 1; 8.3kB 2.8kB 4.5kB 72kDa; 599 amino acids 72kDa; 604 amino acids Amino acids: 90% between species for both isoforms; similar Vmax and Km values for arachidonic acid Glucocorticoids inhibit expression of COX-2, not COX-1; the active site of COX-2 is larger than that of COX-1 Predominantly constitutive. Predominantly inducible Increased 2- to 4-fold (10- to 20-fold). by inflammatory stimuli Constitutive in certain tissues Most tissues, Induced by inflammatory stimuli but particularly platelets, and mitogens in macrophages/ stomach, kidney monocytes, synoviocyes. chondrocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells. Induced by hormones in the ovaries and foetal membranes. Constitutive expression in the CNS, kidney, testes, tracheal epithelial cells. 2.4 Non-selective COX inhibitors NSAIDs are believed to exert their antiinflammatory actions through the inhibition of PG synthesis by blocking COX.20, 21 The predominant effect of these drugs is in the periphery, but the antipyretic effects are mediated by inhibition of PG synthesis in the central nervous system. Aspirin covalently modifies both COX-1 and COX-2 by acetylation of a distinct serine residue within the active site of the enzyme. This results in an irreversible inhibition of COX activity. This is an important distinction for aspirin compared to other NSAIDs, since the duration of activity of aspirin relates to the turnover rate of COX in target tissues. Traditional NSAIDs are weak organic acids (see Table 3) which serve as reversible inhibitors of COX activity. Some non-selective NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and mefenamic acid are purely competitive COX inhibitors. Others including naproxen and indomethacin have a more complex mechanism of inhibition; they bind very tightly to COX and can be classified as timedependent inhibitors. 2.5 COX-2-selective NSAIDs Two COX-2-selective NSAIDs are currently available to clinicians in Australia. Celecoxib (Celebrex®, (Searle)) has been approved for use in Australia for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. Rofecoxib (Vioxx®, (Merck)) has been approved for the treatment of OA. A third agent, meloxicam (Boehringher Ingelheim) has been released in Europe, and may be licensed in Australia at some future date. The indications and recommended dosages for celecoxib and rofecoxib are show in Table 4. COX-2-selective NSAIDs exhibit time-dependent inhibition of COX-2. Table 3. Chemical classification of NSAIDs available in Australia Chemical Class Salicylic acid derivatives Generic Name Aspirin* Proprietary Products Available Ecotrin® Indole acetic acids Diflunisal Indomethacin Dolobid Arthrexin®, Hicin®, Indocid®, Indomed® Sulindac Heteroaryl acetic acids Aclin®, Clinoril®, Saldac® Diclofenac Diclohexal®, Fenac®, Voltaren®, Voltaren Rapid®, Dinac®, Diclohexal®, Arthrotec 50® (Diclofenac 50mg+misoprostil 200microg). Ketorolac Ibuprofen Toradol® ACT-3®, Actiprofen®, Brufen®, Nurofen® Rafen® Ketoprofen Orudis®, Orudis SR®, Oruvail SR® Naproxen/ Anaprox®, Inza®, Naprogesic®, Crysanal®, Napoxen sodium Naprosyn®, Naprosyn SR®, Proxen SR® Anthranilic acids (Fenamates) Tiaprofenic acid Mefenamic acid Surgam®, Tiafen® Mefic®, Ponstan® Enolic acids Oxicams Piroxicam Candyl®, Candyl-D®, Feldene®, Feldene-D®, Moblis®, Moblis-D® Pirohexal-D®, Pirox®, Rosig®, Rosig-D® Tenoxicam Tilcotil® Phenylbutazone Butazolidin® Propionic acid derivatives Pyrazolidinediones * low dose analgesic, antipyretic and antiplatelet preparations of aspirin have been excluded from this list. Table 4. Specific COX-2-selective NSAIDs available in Australia Generic Name Proprietary Products Available Celecoxib Celebrex® Rofecoxib Vioxx® TGA approved indications and recommended dosages Rheumatoid arthritis, 100-200mg twice daily Osteoarthritis, 200mg once daily or 100mg twice daily. Maximum: 200mg twice daily Osteoarthritis, Initially 12.5mg once daily, may be increased if necessary to 25mg once daily 2.6 Assessment of COX-2 specificity A number of disparate methods have been used to assess the potency of inhibitors against COX-1 and COX-2. These assays have utilised COX derived from different species and tissues, and as such the results for individual compounds can vary widely.19 At the International Consensus Meeting on the Mode of Action of COX-2 Inhibition, it was proposed that the human whole blood assay (WBA)22 should be adopted as the standard method for assessing differential inhibition of COX isoforms.19 The human whole blood assay has a number of advantages, including the ability to make assessments of inhibitor activity when a drug is taken by a patient before blood collection, or when the inhibitor is added to the blood after sample collection. In the former case, biologically active metabolites can also be assessed. For assessment of COX-1 activity in this assay, blood is allowed to clot for one hour at 37°C in the presence or absence of inhibitor, and then the serum is assayed for TXB2. Since TXB2 is predominantly derived from platelets in this system, and platelets cannot synthesise COX-2 (See Blood Clotting below), serum TXB2 levels reflect platelet COX-1 activity. For assessment of activity against COX-2, blood is collected in heparinised tubes and incubated for 24hrs at 37°C in the presence or absence of inhibitor, together with LPS. LPS results in PGE2 production by circulating monocytes as a consequence of inducing COX-2, so after 24hrs, serum is assayed for PGE2.22 Enzyme inhibitors are usually described according to their efficiency in inhibiting enzyme activity. The most common variable is the IC50 (concentration of inhibitor which results in a 50% reduction in COX activity). A low IC50 indicates a drug is more potent than one with a high IC50. For COX, the results of inhibitor assays are commonly expressed as a ratio of IC50 for COX-2/COX-1. A smaller value therefore implies a greater selectivity of an agent for COX2. Recently, a number of modifications have been made to the COX-2 component of the WBA. This modified assay is the William Harvey Human Modified Whole Blood Assay (WHMA).23 The changes were made in an attempt to compensate for the longer incubation times in the COX-2 component of the WBA (24hrs) compared to the COX-1 component (1hr), since it is now obvious that the potency of inhibitors for prostanoid formation is dependent upon the supply of arachidonate both in vivo and in vitro.24, 25 In addition, the investigators who developed this assay expressed their results as the ratio of IC80, since steady state plasma concentrations of many NSAIDs, aspirin and meloxicam produce approximately 80% inhibition of both COX-1 and COX-2 in this assay system 23 (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Selectivity of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs given as log inhibitory concentration (IC80) ratio. The ‘0 line’ indicates equipotency (i.e. an IC80 ratio of 1). (Figure reprinted with permission, from Brooks, P.M. COX-2 inhibitors. Australian Prescriber 2000. 23:30-2. See http://www.australianprescriber.com ) Although these data may be used to suggest advantages of one drug over another. their significance is not clear. For example, the results are based on concentrations of drug in plasma, which may not reflect the steady state concentration in the synovial fluid. Furthermore, if these log IC80 ratios of traditional and widely utilised non-selective NSAIDs are compared with the risk of serious GI toxicity of these agents as determined by a large meta-analysis,26 there is a correlation, but it is not strong. This suggests that the clinical significance of these data for predicting adverse GI events is of uncertain importance, and the safety profile of one drug over another will only be determined by wide use in a clinical setting. 2.7 Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disorder characterised by a deforming polyarthritis and a spectrum of extra-articular manifestations. Therapy with diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is instituted to alter the progress of the disease and therefore prevent joint deformity and disability. NSAIDs are primarily used in RA for the relief of pain and inflammation, but do not modify the natural history of RA. Any NSAID may be used, usually chronically and at the higher end of the dose range. Paracetamol can also be useful in RA, sometimes allowing use of a reduced dosage of NSAID.27 Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease affecting the weight-bearing joints and peripheral and axial articulations. One of the hallmarks of the disease is the progressive degeneration of cartilage resulting in pain and restricted motion. It is classified as a non-inflammatory arthropathy, but there may be inflammatory components. Treatment in OA is aimed at pain relief. The first line treatment is paracetamol in adequate dosage (maximum 4g/day) on an occasional or regular basis according to symptoms. If this does not control symptoms adequately, a low-dose NSAID can be added, and dosage increased only if response is unsatisfactory. NSAIDs can also be used intermittently during flares of OA pain.27 2.7.1 COX-2 in RA and OA 2.7.1.1 Studies in experimental animals The role of COX-2 has been studied in animal models of inflammatory arthropathies. COX-2 but not COX-1 is induced in the synovial tissues of rats with adjuvant arthritis (a model of rheumatoid arthritis).28 In this model, a COX-2-selective inhibitor (SC-58125) reduced paw oedema and decreased PGE2 concentrations in the paw to baseline levels with an efficacy indistinguishable from indomethacin. 2.7.1.2 Studies in humans COX-2 is also induced in humans with RA and OA. Using immunohistochemistry with a specific antibody directed against COX-2, Crofford et al demonstrated that COX-2 is present in vivo in synovial tissues from patients with RA.29 Siegle et al studied the expression of COX-1 and COX-2 in patients with inflammatory arthropathies (RA, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis) and in patients with OA. Using both immunohistochemistry with image analysis and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), expression of COX-2 protein and mRNA respectively were significantly higher in inflammatory arthropathies compared to OA.30 The upregulated COX-2 expression in inflammatory arthropathies in this latter study is consistent with a recent study which reported significantly higher concentrations of PGE2 in the synovia of patients with RA compared to those with OA.31 Despite low levels of COX-2 expression in the synovium of patients with OA, cartilage may be a significant source of COX-2 and PGs in these patients. A recent study employing explant cultures of cartilage from OA-affected patients reported upregulation of COX-2 mRNA and protein which coincided with superinduction of PGE2.32 3. Physiological and pathophysiological roles of prostanoids/adverse effects of NSAIDs The main adverse effects of the non-selective NSAIDs involve the GI tract, the kidney and blood clotting. Since PGs mediate a variety of physiological functions, inhibiting their production likely accounts for some of the adverse events associated with NSAID therapy. It is largely the inhibition of COX-1 which is believed to contribute the adverse effect profile of the NSAIDs as a class. However, some effects of individual NSAIDs may be unrelated to COX inhibition. For example, aplastic anaemia has been reported following phenylbutazone treatment, and tiaprofenic acid can cause cystitis. It has been hypothesised that specific COX-2-selective NSAIDs will have a superior adverse effect profile compared to the non-selective inhibitors (particularly GI side effects), but it is possible that the COX-2-selective NSAIDs will cause unwanted effects independent of their selective actions on COX-2. Drug adverse effects can be classified as being type A or type B reactions. Type A reactions are common reactions which are dose-dependent and in line with the pharmacology of the drug. Type B reactions are idiosyncratic, rare and more likely to be serious. Most clinical trials are powered to detect drug efficacy, not safety. Therefore, although type A reactions will often emerge in the clinical trial process, this is not always the case. For example, it was some years after marketing that the ACE inhibitor cough emerged as one of the most common adverse effects of this class of drug. Since type B reactions are infrequent, they are rarely detected by clinical trials. These reactions emerge as a consequence of vigilant reporting of adverse reactions. This section reviews some of the physiological roles of COX and PGs, in addition to describing some of the adverse effects commonly associated with COX inhibition by non-selective NSAIDs. The adverse effects of the COX-2-selective NSAIDs which have emerged in clinical trials are discussed below in section 5.2. 3.1 Inflammatory and immune responses PGs are released by a large variety of mechanical, thermal, chemical and microbiological insults, and they contribute significantly to the signs and symptoms of inflammation.33 In areas of acute inflammation, PGE2 and PGI2 are generated by local tissues and blood vessels, while mast cells release PGD2. Monocyte-lineage cells (macrophages) can release PGE2 and TXA2. PGs, in particular PGE2 are major mediators of the inflammatory response. PGEs and PGE2 in particular, modulate the oedema and pain which constitute the classical signs of inflammation. PGEs do not directly increase vascular permeability, but can increase plasma exudation induced by other mediators such as C5a.34 PGEs can also increase blood flow to inflamed areas thereby enhancing leukocyte infiltration and contributing to the development of oedema.2 PGE2 also lowers nociceptive thresholds, sensitising peripheral sensory nerve endings and thereby potentiating the effects of nociceptive agents such as bradykinin and histamine. In addition, COX products are thought to act in the spinal cord to facilitate the transimission of pain responses.35 PGE2 is also a pyretic agent and contributes to fever associated with infections.36 Inhibition of the synthesis of PGs is believed to account for the clinical efficacy of the NSAIDs. It is important to remember that the inflammatory process is a defence mechanism to protect the body from noxious stimuli. It is only when the inflammatory response is not appropriately limited and continues unnecessarily that COX-2 activity becomes detrimental. 3.2 The GI tract 3.2.1 PG’s and their role in gastric protection Cytoprotective PGs in the stomach are thought to be synthesised primarily by COX-1 which is widely distributed throughout the GIT. Basal expression of COX-2 mRNA and protein can also be detected in the GI mucosa.37 In the stomach, PGE2 and PGI2 inhibit gastric acid secretion stimulated by feeding, histamine or gastrin. Volume, acidity and pepsin content of secretion are all reduced. Both PGE2 and PGI2 are vasodilators in the GI mucosa, and PGI2 may be directly involved in the regulation of blood flow. Mucous secretion in the stomach and small intestine is increased by PGEs. These effects help to maintain the integrity of the GI mucosa.2 In addition, PGEs and their analogues inhibit gastric damage caused by a variety of ulcerogenic agents and promote healing of duodenal and gastric ulcers.38 3.2.2 Incidence and awareness of adverse GI effects after NSAID therapy The most common adverse events associated with NSAID therapy involve the GI tract.39 There is a major risk of GI disturbances, perforation, ulcers and bleeding associated with NSAID usage which represents a significant socioeconomic burden. The risk of an adverse GI event increases linearly with age 40, and remains constant over time.41, 42 Other risk factors for GI damage are higher doses of NSAIDs (including the use of two or more NSAIDs), a history of gastroduodenal ulcer or gastrointestinal bleeding, concomitant use of corticosteroids, serious coexisting conditions, and concomitant use of anticoagulants.40 Within a six month period of treatment, between 5 and 15% of patients can be expected to discontinue therapy because of dyspepsia 43, and it has been estimated that approximately 0.42% of patients who take an NSAID for a year are at risk of developing a serious ulcer complication.38, 39 The mortality rate amongst patients who are hospitalised for NSAID-induced upper GI bleeding is approximately 10%. In the USA, the number of deaths per year attributed to NSAID gastropathy is estimated to be 7600 and the number of hospitalisations is 76000/year.39 In the UK, it has been estimated that 12 000 ulcer complications and 1200 deaths/year are attributable to NSAID usage.44 There are no recent figures which document the incidence of serious NSAID-induced GI complications in Australia, although it has been estimated that in 1988 there were approximately 1200 hospital admissions for ulcer complications attributable to NSAID usage, in people aged 65 years and over.45 Surveys in Australia in the late 1980s showed that approximately 20% of the elderly population were taking NSAIDs, and that 43% of community use of NSAIDs was in patients over 60 years of age.45, 46 Since this time there has been a significant reduction in prescription sales of NSAIDs in Australia (Figure 4a) as a consequence of educational and regulatory interventions.45 In 1996 Henry and coworkers published a meta-analysis of clinical trials which highlighted differences in GI risk associated with specific NSAIDs.26 This study reported the lowest pooled risk was associated with diclofenac and ibuprofen at doses of less than 1600mg/day. The highest pooled relative risk was with piroxicam and ketoprofen (See Figure 5). It is important to note that the relative risk for ibuprofen increases at doses greater than 1600mg/day, and for all NSAIDs, the antiinflammatory effects and the incidence of adverse effects are both dose related.47 Figure 4. a) Graph showing the declining number of NSAID prescriptions dispensed from June 89 to June 99. b) Graph showing NSAID usage stratified by GI Risk for the corresponding period. Figure 4b. Figure 5. Graph showing comparison by meta-analysis of the pooled relative risk (±95% confidence intervals) of serious upper GI complications from exposure to individual NSAIDs compared with exposure to ibuprofen. Risk was not established for diflunisal due to an insufficient number of studies) and tenoxicam or tiaprofenic acid due to unavailability of comparative data. The National Prescribing Service (NPS) conducted an educational campaign early in 1999 to alert to differences in relative risk associated with NSAIDs. Although statistics for the latter half of 1999 are not yet available, data obtained from the PBS show that in the first half of 1999, prescribing of longer acting (higher risk) agents fell. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of prescriptions of shorter acting (lower risk) agents (Figure 4b). Although prescribers are generally aware of the potential for adverse effects with NSAID therapy, public perceptions and understanding about side effects and drug usage may not always reflect that of health care professionals. For example, a recent survey of 4799 people conducted in the USA reported that 45% of the group took NSAIDs for five or more consecutive days/month, and 40% of these took both OTC and prescribed NSAIDs. Many of the group were unaware or unconcerned about the possibility of adverse GI effects, and incorrectly believed that warning signs would precede a serious GI episode.42 There are currently no data available on OTC consumption of naproxen sodium, ibuprofen, mefenamic acid, topical diclofenac or aspirin in Australia. 3.2.3 Pathogenesis of mucosal injury Gastroduodenal mucosal injury develops when the normal defensive properties of the mucosa are overwhelmed by gastric acid. NSAIDs contribute to mucosal injury by two independent mechanisms: 1) a topical effect related to the physico-chemical properties of NSAIDs themselves 48 and 2) a systemic effect through decreased mucosal PG synthesis.49 The vast majority of NSAIDs are weak organic acids. In the stomach, they remain in unionised form and can freely diffuse across the membrane of mucosal cells. Once inside the neutral cytoplasm, the drug ionises resulting in trapping of hydrogen ions within the cell.50 Systemic inhibition of PG synthesis impairs mucosal repair and microvascular blood flow, and also results in inhibition of hepatocyte growth factor production which may delay healing of mucosal ulcers.51 Indeed, the systemic effects of these agents appear to have the predominant role in ulcer development, even though superficial mucosal injury may be reduced. In support of this, the use of enteric coated aspirin preparations and parenteral or rectal administration of NSAIDs have failed to prevent the development of ulcers.46, 52, 53 3.2.4 Clinical spectrum of injury The spectrum of NSAID-related gastroduodenal injury includes a combination of subepithelial haemorrhages, erosions, and ulcerations that is often referred to as NSAID gastropathy. The distinction between erosions and ulcerations depends on pathological definitions: erosions are defined as lesions confined to the mucosa, and ulcers are defined as lesions that penetrate the muscolaris mucosae into the submucosa. An ulcer can cause haemorrhages when it erodes into the arteries below the mucosa. In practice, an endoscopic definition is used, which is based on a subjective assessment of the size, shape, and depth of the lesion. The likelihood of a lesion being an ulcer increases with lesion size. Erosions are likely to be small and superficial, whereas ulcers tend to be at least 5 mm in diameter with apparent depth.54 Although some studies have defined ulcers as a mucosal break of ≥ 3mm in diameter, Graham in an editorial in Gastroenterology makes the point that ‘a 5mm lesion provides a more acceptable standard for a potentially serious lesion, and results of any study that provide data about 3mm ‘ulcers’ should be viewed with caution.’55 3.2.5 COX-2 in the GI tract Helicobacter pylori infection can also lead to ulcers which are often accompanied by a wide field of non-erosive inflammatory gastritis. H. pylori infection is more common in elderly patients, as is NSAID use.56 The relationships between NSAID use, H. pylori infection and gastric damage are not well understood. NSAID usage does not increase susceptibility to H. pylori infection but whether a mucosa which has been damaged by H. pylori infection is more susceptible to the toxic effects of NSAIDs is unclear. Eradication of H. pylori before starting NSAID therapy reduces the occurrence of gastroduodenal ulcers in patients who have not previously taken NSAIDs.57 However, another study investigating the effects of H. pylori eradication in patients with current or previous NSAID-induced ulcers or dyspepsia who continued to use NSAIDs found that H. pylori eradication did not alter the outcome in terms of ulcer recurrence or dyspepsia.58 COX-2 is induced by gastric injury, and gastritis caused by H. pylori is associated with COX-2 expression not only in mononuclear cells, but also parietal cells and gastric epithelium.59, 60 Eradication of H. pylori leads to reduced expression of COX-2 in the gastric epithelium, but levels remain elevated and are strongly correlated with the severity of chronic inflammatory cell infiltrate.60 The relationship of COX-2 induction in the gut secondary to H. pylori infection needs further exploration. It was initially hypothesised that COX-2 may play a role in the immune response against H. pylori since COX-2 is expressed around the rim of the ulcer, and in animal studies, COX-2 inhibition retarded ulcer healing.61 Recent studies have highlighted the importance of both COX isoforms in the formation of new capillary blood vessels (angiogenesis).62 Angiogenesis is essential for wound and ulcer healing, and also for the growth and metastasis of solid tumours. This action of COX-2-selective NSAIDs accounts for their activity in the prevention of colon and other cancers.63-67 However it also suggests these agents should be used with caution in patients with active GI ulcers. 3.3 The kidney Adverse renal effects occur in approximately 5% of patients who are taking NSAIDs, and advanced age is a primary risk factor in these individuals. PG’s synthesised by the kidneys affect haemodynamics and sodium and water metabolism. PGI2, PGE2 and PGD2 dilate the glomerular arterioles and enhance renal perfusion.68 PGE2 and PGF2 have diuretic and natriuretic effects since they inhibit sodium reabsorption at the thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle.69 Despite these many actions, PGs modulate but do not maintain normal renal blood flow in healthy individuals. However, PG production becomes important in maintaining blood flow and glomerular filtration in the compromised kidney.70, 71 This is particularly important in patients with congestive heart failure, liver cirrhosis, compromised renal function or when diuretics are administered concomitantly (hypovolaemic subjects).72-74 In individuals with these clinical conditions, renal function is highly dependent upon local production of PGE2 within the kidney to offset the vasoconstrictor effects of high concentrations of angiotensin, vasopressin and catecholamines that result from the activation of pressor reflexes. Inhibition of PG synthesis by NSAIDs in these patients can lead to sodium and water retention and weight gain, and can also precipitate acute renal failure when reduced PG synthesis leads to unopposed vasoconstriction.2, 73 Renin release is also partially controlled by PGI268 and inhibition of PG synthesis by NSAIDs can occasionally affect the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system leading to a reduction in aldosterone secretion. In patients with renal impairment, especially those treated with agents that increase serum potassium levels (for example, potassium sparing diuretics, potassium supplements, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists), this can lead to hyperkalaemia.73, 75 3.3.1 COX-2 expression in the kidney The role of COX-2 in generating PGs in the kidney is complex and still being defined. In the adult human kidney, constitutive expression of COX-2 protein and mRNA is detectable in endothelial and smooth muscle cells of arteries and veins and intraglomerularly in podocytes.11 Studies in the rat have demonstrated that high levels of COX-2 can be induced in the kidney in response to appropriate stimuli. Salt restriction alters the intra-renal distribution of COX-2 and dramatically upregulates its expression in the macula densa and surrounding cortical thick ascending limb.76 There may also be important feedback loops between the renin-angiotensin system and renal expression of COX-2. For example, administration of a selective COX-2 inhibitor blocked increases in renal renin production in response to a low-salt diet or after administration of ACE inhibitors,77, 78 and administration of ACE inhibitors led to increased COX-2 expression in the macula densa of rats on control or low sodium diets.78 In a study assessing the influence of COX inhibition on renal function in young, healthy and salt-depleted males, celecoxib was found to cause Na+ and K+ retention. These are early clinical features of renal dysfunction induced by NSAIDs in hypovolaemic patients. Conversely rofecoxib had minimal effects on renal function in healthy, elderly patients with normal renal function (defined as creatinine clearance > 50mL/min or serum creatinine < 2mg/dL) and a high intake of dietary sodium (200mEq/day). These data support the findings in animals which suggest that COX-2 expression may be important in the physiological response to a low sodium diet. An important role of COX-2 in kidney function and development is suggested by studies utilising COX knockout mice. COX-2 homozygous knockout (-/-) mice show severe renal pathology which progressively deteriorates with age 79, 80, but the kidneys of COX-1 homozygous (-/-) knockouts show only minor abnormalities even at 5 months of age.81 3.4 Blood clotting The endothelial cells which line the circulatory tree serve as a barrier between flowing blood and the vessel wall, and actively elaborate antithrombotic factors such as PGI2 and nitric oxide which maintain fluidity of blood. PGI2 derived from endothelial cells effects relaxation of vascular smooth muscle cells, and also blocks platelet activation when released into the bloodstream. At sites of vascular injury the antithrombotic properties of the endothelium is lost, and the platelets are exposed to thrombotic substances that lead to platelet activation. Activated platelets release ADP and TXA2. ADP leads to the activation of other platelets. TXA2 which is the major product of arachidonate metabolism in platelets is a powerful inducer of platelet aggregation and a potent vasoconstrictor. Platelets do not have nuclei and therefore cannot produce inducible COX, so COX-1 is the only isoform detectable in the these cells. Inhibition of COX-1 is the aim of ‘half an aspirin a day’ prophylaxis against thromboembolic disease, and is achieved by decreased production of TXA2. Within 2 hours of a single dose of aspirin, COX-1 is irreversibly inhibited for the life of the platelet in the circulation (8-10 days). PGI2 production by endothelial cells is also temporarily decreased, but COX-1 in these cells can regenerate within hours, so PGI2 synthesis is reestablished.2, 82 Although PGI2 is a potent vasodilator and inhibitor of platelet activation, its role in the intact organism has remained speculative in the absence of an antagonist of the PGI2 receptor. However, mice deficient in the IP- receptor (the receptor through which PGI2 mediates its effects) suggest an important role for PGI2 in mediating inflammation and preventing thrombosis.83 Furthermore, a recent study by McAdam and coworkers suggests that COX-2 may play a major role in the biosynthesis of both systemic and renal PGI2 under physiological conditions.84 In this study, celecoxib (doses up to 800mg), rofecoxib and ibuprofen (800mg) all suppressed excretion of the metabolite of PGI2. However, only ibuprofen significantly inhibited TXB2 formation ex vivo. This study was conducted in young, healthy volunteers and it remains to be determined whether these effects are sustained during chronic dosing in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. 3.5 Gestation and parturition Both COX-1 and COX-2 are involved in reproduction. COX-2 is important in rupture of the follicle during ovulation, and implantation of the embyro in the uterine endometrium.15 PGs are expressed in the uterine epithelium, and can lead to contraction of uterine smooth muscle. They are important for inducing uterine contractions during labour, and NSAIDs can therefore increase the duration of gestation and delay premature labour.85 However, they are rarely used for this purpose, since in the foetus, PGs maintain the patency of the ductus arteriosis. NSAIDs can therefore lead to premature duct closure and disruption of fetal circulation.86 The significance of COX in reproduction is supported by studies in knockout mice. COX-2 knockout mice are infertile, and COX-1 knockout mice have few live births when female homozygotes are mated to male homozygotes.79, 81 4. Drug interactions Celecoxib is metabolised to inactive metabolites via CYP2C9. Drugs known to inhibit this isoenzyme should be coadministered with caution due to the potential risk of increasing the plasma concentration of celecoxib. Although not involved in its metabolism, celecoxib is an inhibitor of CYP2D6, and hence has the potential to cause an interaction resulting in the elevation of plasma concentrations of any drugs metabolised via this isoenzyme. Table5. Drug interactions involving celecoxib 5, 87, 88 Drug involved in interaction Mechanism and result of interaction Inhibitors of CYP2C9: amiodarone, cimetidine, fluoxetine, zafirlukast, fluconazole, fluvastatin, fluvoxamine, metronidazole ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists Elevated plasma concentration of celecoxib. Two fold increase in celecoxib plasma concentration with coadministration of fluconazole. Frusemide and thiazides Lithium Antacids Warfarin Substrates of CYP2D6: betablockers (metoprolol, propanolol), certain antidepressants (amitriptyline, desipramine, clomipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, venlafaxine), perhexiline and antipsychotics (haloperidol, risperidone, thioridazine) Codeine and oxycodone Coadministration of celecoxib may diminish the antihypertensive effect of ACE inhibitors, potential to induce acute renal impairment in patients who are renally compensated. Inhibition of renal prostaglandins by celecoxib may reduce the natriuretic effect. Increased lithium plasma levels by 17%, monitor closely. Coadministration of aluminium and magnesium containing antacids reduce plasma concentration of celecoxib due to impaired oral bioavailability. Increased prothrombin time and bleeding events reported, predominantly in elderly patients on warfarin and celecoxib, monitor carefully 8 9 Increased plasma concentration of substrates due to inhibition of metabolism by celecoxib. Potential for the conversion of codeine to morphine and oxycodone to oxymorphone via CYP2D6 to be inhibited by celecoxib, some patients may experience a decrease in pain relief from codeine and oxycodone preparations. Cytochrome P450 enzymes play a minor role in metabolism of rofecoxib, which is mainly metabolised in the liver by reduction and then excreted in the urine. There are a number of drug interactions when rofecoxib is coadministered with other agents. Concomitant administration of antacids led to a 20% decrease in serum concentrations of rofecoxib. Concomitant administration of rifampicin decreases rofecoxib plasma concentrations by 50%. Plasma concentrations of methotrexate are increased by a mean of 23% when administered with rofecoxib, and plasma concentrations of lithium are also increased by rofecoxib. Rofecoxib taken with warfarin resulted in a 10% increase in prothrombin time. The mechanism of these interactions is unknown, but therapy with these agents should be carefully monitored in patients who are taking rofecoxib. Rofecoxib also may decrease the anti-hypertensive effect of ACE inhibitors.5, 90, 91 5. Published trials of efficacy and adverse effects with celecoxib and rofecoxib. This section reviews published efficacy studies and adverse event studies for celecoxib and rofecoxib, and makes recommendations on dosage in RA and OA. Both celecoxib and rofecoxib were approved for use by TGA when full details of studies comparing the active drug to placebo or other NSAIDs were available only in abstract form, making critical appraisal and assessment by independent reviewers extremely difficult. The experience in other countries has been similar (see http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter31/htm). Several studies have now appeared in the literature, and in this section, efficacy studies with celecoxib and rofecoxib are reviewed. When the details of phase III studies are available, data from phase 2 studies is not presented. Some additional data is also presented from the approved product information for both drugs. 5.1. Efficacy studies 5.1.1 Efficacy studies with celecoxib Celecoxib has been approved for use in Australia for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. In OA, celecoxib at doses of 100mg bd and 200mg bd provides significant reduction in pain associated with OA compared with placebo. When compared with naproxen 500mg bd, celecoxib 100mg bd is as efficacious as higher doses. Hence, the recommended dose of celecoxib in OA is 100mg bd with or without food. In RA, celecoxib 100mg bd and 200mg bd provides a significant reduction in pain and inflammation compared to placebo. These doses are equally efficacious and comparable to naproxen 500mg bd or diclofenac SR 75mg bd, although the product information reports that some patients derived additional benefit with 200mg bd. Table 6. Published efficacy trials with celecoxib Patients Design/Age Exclusions Dur-ation Main efficacy measures OA, knee Multicentre, randomised, double-blind placebo & active controlled trial Patients with NSAID or sulphonamide sensitivity excluded malignancy active renal GI hepatic or coagulation disorders; oesophageal or gastroduodenal ulceration in previous 30 days 12 weeks 1. patient and physician’s global assessment of OA; 2. WOMAC†; 3. patient’s assessment of OA pain on a VAS¶ 4. OA severity index Mean 62-3 yo (assessed wks 2,6 & 12) Drug & Dose 50mg bd 100mg bd 200mg bd n 203 197 202 Better than n 204 placebo placebo Comp-arable to Naproxen 500mg bd n 198 Significant Adverse Effects* Most common events were GIT symptoms , and these were similar amongst all groups One patient in naproxen group had a bleeding ulcer, one patient in celecoxib 50mg group had an ulcer OA, knee RA Notes Reference 50mg celecoxib minimally effective compared to higher celecoxib doses or naproxen Bensen, W. G., et al. (1999). Treatment of osteoarthritis with celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor: A randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 74:1095-1105 Higher doses were of comparable efficacy to each other and to naproxen Identical to previous study Multicentre, randomised, double-blind placebo & active controlled trial Mean 54-5 yo continued next page active renal GI hepatic or coagulation disorders; malignancy, oesophageal or gastroduodenal ulceration in prev. 30 days or if baseline endoscopy showed ulcers or > 10 erosions 12 weeks (assessed wks 2,6 & 12) 1. patient and physician’s global assessment of arthritis 2. patients assessment of arthritis pain on a VAS 3. count of painful/tender joints 4. count of swollen joints 5. duration of morning stiffness 6. functional disability index questionnaire 7. Cp C-reactive protein 100mg bd 200mg bd 400mg bd 240 235 218 placebo * placebo placebo * patient but not physician global assessment 231 Naproxen 500mg bd 225 See table 2.1 for GI adverse events No adverse renal effects. 0-2% incidence of fluid retention & hypertension in all groups all celecoxib doses were similarly efficacious Supported in part by Searle Zhao, S. Z., et al. (1999). Evaluation of the functional status aspects of health-related quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis treated with celecoxib. Pharmacotherapy. 19:1269-1278 Simon, L. S., et al. (1999). Anti-inflammatory and upper gastrointestinal effects of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis - A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 282:19211928 Supported by Searle Table 6. Published efficacy trials with celecoxib RA randomised, double-blind parallel activecontrolled trial Mean 54-55yo OA, knee and hip RA Placebo and active controlled clinical trials up to 12 weeks duration. Approx. 4200 patients Placebo and active controlled clinical trials up to 24 weeks duration. any concomitant rheumatic condition, active or suspected peptic ulceration or GI bleeding, coagulation defect or any other disorder precluding NSAID use, malignancy, renal or hepatic disorder, inflammatory bowel disease, diclofenac intolerance, hypersensitivity to NSAIDs, COX2-selective NSAIDs or sulphonamide, any abnormal clinical or laboratory values pretreatment +others (see study) 24 weeks (assessed wks 4, 8, 12, 16,20 & 24) 326 Diclofenac SR 75mg bd 329 continued See table 2.1 for GI side effects - Celecoxib and diclofenac were similarly effective in managing RA pain and inflammation Emery, P. et al. (1999). Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long-term management of rheumatoid arthritis: randomised doubleblind comparison. Lancet. 354: 2106-2111 1. physician and patient assessment of arthritis 2. number of tender or painful joints 3. number of swollen joints 4. patients responding according to ACR-20‡ 5 functional disability score with the modified health assessment questionnaire 6. duration of morning stiffness (VAS) 7. Cp C-reactive protein 8. withdrawals due to treatment failure. 200mg bd Signs and symptoms of arthritis, WOMAC, OA flare 100mg bd 200mg od 200mg bd Placebo Naproxen 500mg bd Celecoxib comparable to naproxen. Total daily dose of 200mg maximally effective. Celebrex® product information. (Some details have not been published, although summaries may be available in abstract form) 100mg bd 200mg bd Placebo Naproxen 500mg bd Celecoxib doses similar in effectiveness and comparable to naproxen Celebrex® product information. (Some details have not been published, although summaries may be available in abstract form) Supported by Searle Approx. 2100 patients * Studies in efficacy section - were included again in the Side effects section if the title of the article made a specific reference to side effect profile † WOMAC - Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (Composite of pain, stiffness and functional measures) ¶ VAS -Visual analog scale ‡ACR-20 - American College of Rheumatology responder index (Composite of clinical, laboratory and functional measures) Additional Study 92 - Four Phase 2 trials: 2 week OA efficacy trial; 4 week RA efficacy trial; 1 week endoscopic study of GI mucosal effects and a 1 week study of effects on platelet function. 5.1.2 Efficacy studies with rofecoxib Rofecoxib has been approved by the TGA for the treatment of pain associated with OA. Rofecoxib 12.5mg or 25mg given as a daily dose is significantly superior to placebo for the treatment of the signs of osteoarthritis. To date (Jan 12, 2000) there have been no active controlled trials published. However, studies published in abstract form report that a daily dose of 12.5mg or 25mg rofecoxib were comparable to ibuprofen 800mg tds or diclofenac 50mg tds in treatment of OA of the hip and knee.91, 93, 94 Table 7. Published efficacy trials with rofecoxib Patients Design/Age Exclusions Dur-ation Main efficacy measures OA, knee Randomised placebo controlled trial Previous gastric/duodenal ulceration; history of GI bleeding; renal impairment, diabetes, history of cardiovascular, hepatic, neurological neoplastic or coagulation disorder 6 weeks 1) WOMAC 2) patient assessment of OA pain on a VAS 3) physician and patient global assessment of response to Tx 4) physician global assessment of disease status (Likert scale) 5) patient global assessment of disease status 6) % of patients who discontinued due to lack of efficacy Mean 63.5yo RA Phase II Randomised, double-blind placebo controlled trial Mean 54-55yo OA, knee or hip Six randomised clinical trials of rofecoxib lasting from 6 to 86 weeks. 4035 patients including approx. 400 pts >80yo other inflammatory arthropathies, uncontrolled diabetes, active GI bleeding or ulceration, positive stool guaiac screen, malignancy, recent serious cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal impairment, NSAID or paracetamol sensitivity (assessed 1,2,4 & 6 wks) 8 weeks (assessed 2,4 & 8 weeks) Drug & Dose 25mg od 125mg od 1) swollen joint count 2) tender joint count 3) patient global assessment of disease activity on a VAS 4) investigator global assessment of disease activity (Likert scale) 5) Stanford Health assessment questionnaire disability index 6) patient global assessment of pain on a VAS 7) levels of C-reactive protein 5mg od 25mg od 50mg/od Signs and symptoms of OA 1.25mg od 25mg od Joint space narrowing at one year (compared to diclofenac only) n 73 74 158 171 161 Better than Placebo Placebo n Comparable to 72 n Significant Adverse Effects 1 gastric bleed in association with gastric and duodenal ulcers in rofecoxib 125mg treatment group Dose-related peripheral oedema 2.7% and 6.8% in 25 and 125mg treatment groups respectively No clinically significant oedema or hypertension. No serious GI effects 168 Notes Reference Both doses of rofecoxib were superior to placebo from 1wk (1st assessment) for duration of study Ehrich, E. W. et al. (1999). Effect of specific COX-2 inhibition in osteoarthritis of the knee: A 6 week double blind, placebo controlled pilot study of rofecoxib. Journal of Rheumatology. 26:2438-2447 125mg is 5 times the maximum recommended dose for treatment of OA 25 and 50mg rofecoxib significantly better than placebo. 5mg not significantly different to placebo. Schnitzer, T. J. et al. (1999). The safety profile, tolerability, and effective dose range of rofecoxib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical Therapeutics. 21:1688-1702 Rofecoxib Groups well matched for age and sex Placebo Diclofenac 50mg tid Ibuprofen 800mg tid Rofecoxib comparable to diclofenac or ibuprofen Vioxx® Product Information. (Full details of studies not published, although summaries may be available in abstract form) 5.2 Adverse effect studies with celecoxib and rofecoxib The COX-2-selective NSAIDs are new drugs for which there is a limited amount of published comparative safety data. Most clinical trials are powered to detect drug efficacy, not drug safety.. Drug side effects can be classified as being type A or type B reactions. Type A reactions are common reactions which are dose-dependent and in line with the pharmacology of the drug. These effects will often emerge in the clinical trial process, but this is not always the case. For example, it was some years after marketing that the ACE inhibitor cough emerged as one of the most common side effects of this class of drug. In contrast, type B reactions are idiosyncratic, rare and more likely to be serious. Since they are infrequent, these reactions are rarely detected by clinical trials but emerge as a consequence of vigilant reporting of adverse effects. Therefore, and accurate picture of a drug’s adverse effects profile may not appear until several years after a drug is introduced into therapeutics. 5.2.1 Gastrointestinal (GI) complications The most common adverse effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib in clinical trials are dyspepsia, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. When compared to nonselective NSAIDs, the COX-2-selective NSAIDs result in a lower incidence of dyspepsia, but the difference is modest and may not be clinically relevant. The major marketing tactic for the COX-2-selective NSAIDs is their relative safety compared with traditional NSAIDs. To date, no studies have assessed the effect of celecoxib or rofecoxib on PG synthesis in the human gastric mucosa at therapeutic doses. However, in clinical trials there is a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of endoscopically proven ulcers in patients treated with both agents. Several factors complicate the interpretation of published clinical trials. Firstly, most studies have defined an ulcer as a ‘3mm lesion with unequivocal depth’, although one study also used 5mm ulcers as a secondary end-point (see section 3.24). In the majority of patients these ulcers are asymptomatic, and are a surrogate endpoint which may or may not reflect the real risk of developing serious ulcer complications. This has been a contentious issue in the literature, but there is evidence that endoscopic ulcers are predictive of adverse clinical events. Secondly, limited numbers of patients have been treated with either agent so the incidence of potentially uncommon GI side effects may not become evident until the drugs are more widely used in clinical practice. A third difficulty is that although some studies permitted inclusion of patients with a history of GI ulcers or bleeding, no published study has permitted inclusion of patients with active ulcers. Since COX-2 is detectable in the ulcerated mucosa, and animal studies have suggested that COX-2 inhibitors may impair ulcer healing, care must be taken in using these agents in patients who have existing ulcers or erosions. Because of these factors, large scale post-marketing surveillance and vigilant adverse event reporting will be required to determine to what extent these agents significantly decrease the incidence of clinically important ulcers, particularly in patients at high risk for ulcer complications. Peterson and Cryer in an editorial in JAMA make the following point ‘In patients with RA with no risk factors for NSAID-induced ulcers, the risk of developing an ulcer complication related to NSAID use is only 0.4%.38 Assuming that a COX-1-sparing NSAID will prevent complicated ulcers in approximately 50% of patients taking NSAIDs (reducing the risk to 0.2%), 500 low-risk patients would need to be treated with a COX-1-sparing NSAID to prevent each complicated ulcer that might have developed had all of these low-risk patients been taking traditional NSAIDs.’ These figures are based on drug costs in the USA, and do not take into account the costs of endoscopies, concomitant treatment with gastroprotective agents, or hospitalisations for serious GI toxicity. Due to the perceived relative safety of celecoxib with regard to GI complications, it is likely that it will be prescribed for those patients at greatest risk, such as patients with a history of GI erosion or ulceration. The GI complication rate in this group of patients is as yet unknown 5.2.2 Renal complications The effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib on the renal system are not clear. Therefore caution should be exercised in prescribing these agents in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), fluid retention, hypertension or impaired renal function. No studies have permitted the inclusion of patients with moderate to severe renal failure, and most studies have excluded patients with mildly impaired renal function (i.e. creatinine clearance (CLCr) < 50mL/min). A study of celecoxib in healthy males who were sodium restricted found that celecoxib decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and renal blood flow and significantly reduced sodium excretion after 7 days. Another study assessed the effects of rofecoxib on the renal function of healthy elderly subjects who were not renally impaired. This study found that rofecoxib did not significantly affect GFR or sodium excretion, but the patients in this study were not sodium restricted and fed a diet which had 10x the recommended daily allowance of sodium. COX-2 and the renin-angiotensin system are induced in response to restriction of dietary sodium. It is therefore difficult to comment on the significance of these studies and their relevance to renally impaired elderly patients who may not be able to tolerate chances in fluid volume. In healthy volunteers, both celecoxib and rofecoxib can decrease renal biosynthesis of PGI2. It may therefore be predicted that problems with fluid retention and overload could arise in the elderly, and in patients with impaired renal function. This may be particularly important in patients on ACE inhibitor therapy with compensatory mechanisms working to maintain renal blood flow. The addition of a COX-2 inhibitor may induce acute renal failure similar to that reported with the combination of traditional NSAIDs and ACE inhibitors. 5.2.3 Bleeding time In clinical trials, celecoxib and rofecoxib have no effect on platelets and bleeding times when administered alone. However, a study in healthy volunteers has demonstrated that celecoxib and rofecoxib can decrease both renal and systemic synthesis of PGI2.84 The significance of this effect in patients with thromboembolic disease remains to be determined. Furthermore, both celecoxib and rofecoxib may lead to increases in prothrombin time when administered concomitantly with warfarin.5, 89 5.2.4 NSAID-sensitive asthmatics No trials have been conducted in patients who are hypersensitive to NSAIDs. Table 9. Published trials assessing safety of celecoxib Author Study Design Treatment n Measures Simon, L.S. et al. (1999). Anti-inflammatory and upper gastrointestinal effects of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis - A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 282:1921-1928 12 week randomised, double-blind placebo & active controlled trial of patients with RA Placebo Celecoxib 100mg bd Celecoxib 200mg bd Celecoxib 400mg bd Naproxen 500mg bd 231 240 235 217 225 Upper GI endoscopy performed within 7 days prior to first dose of medication. Mucosa of stomach and duodenum evaluated separately for petechiae, erosions and ulcers. Ulcers defined as break in mucosa at least 3mm in diameter with unequivocal depth. Repeated at the final treatment or early termination visit. Patients also tested for H. pylori. Gastroduodenal ulcers occurred in 4% of placebo patients, 4-6% of celecoxibtreated patients and 26% of naproxentreated patients. Few of the ulcers were symptomatic. 1 naproxen-treated patient developed two ulcers creating a partial gastric outlet obstruction. EXCLUDED: active renal GI hepatic or coagulation disorders; oesophageal or gastroduodenal ulceration in prev. 30 days or if baseline endoscopy showed ulcers or > 10 erosions Results and Comment Very small study to detect rare GI events. Supported by Searle Rossat, J. et al. (1999). Renal effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition in normotensive saltdepleted subjects. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 66:76-84 Sponsored by Searle Emery, P. et al. (1999). Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long-term management of rheumatoid arthritis: randomised double-blind comparison. Lancet. 354: 2106-2111 Supported by Searle McAdam, B.F.et al. (1999). Systemic biosynthesis of prostacyclin by cyclooxygenase (COX)-2: the human pharmacology of a selective inhibitor of COX-2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 96:272-7 7 day randomised, double blind trial of 40 healthy young male volunteers (Mean age 24.8yo). Placebo Celecoxib 200mg bd Celecoxib 400mg bd Naproxen 500mg bd 10 10 10 10 Renal haemodynamic (renal plasma flow and GFR) and tubular responses (electrolyte excretion), blood pressure, heart rate. 24hr electrolyte excretion assessed daily; other effects assessed pre- and post-dosing on days 1 and 7. Celecoxib resulted in transient but significant decrease in glomerular filtration rate and a decrease in renal plasma flow, comparable to the effect of naproxen. Celecoxib also significantly reduced urinary volume and sodium and potassium excretion at day 7. The authors concluded that celecoxib does not spare the kidney in salt depleted subjects and caution may need to be exercised when celecoxib is coadministered with diuretics or in patients with hypertension and/or CHF. Celecoxib 200mg bd 212 Diclofenac SR 75mg bd 218 GI safety based on a single upper GI endoscopy at week 24 or time of withdrawal from study. Injury to gastric and duodenal mucosa were evaluated separately taking note of petechiae, erosions and ulcer. An ulcer was defined as a break in the mucosa of at least 3mm with unequivocal depth. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported in 48% of patients taking diclofenac and 36% of patients taking celecoxib. GI tollerability based on clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, adverse events and study withdrawals. Data on perforation, bleeding or gastric outlet obstruction were assessed using prespecified criteria judged by a blinded, external committee of gastroenterologists The respective incidences of gastric and duodenal ulcers were 34% and 11% for patients on diclofenac, and 18% and 5% for patients on celecoxib. Platelet aggregation ex vivo, Serum TXB2 levels, Whole blood monocyte COX-2 activity and Urinary metabolites of systemic and renal prostacyclin biosynthesis (2,3dinor-6-keto PGF1 and 6-keto PGF1 respectively) Celecoxib didn’t affect platelet aggregation, but had a significant inhibitory effect on serum TXB2 4hrs after dosing. All subjected to a low salt diet (<50mmol Na+ and 3500Calories/day) beginning 5 days before the study and continuing throughout. 40mg Frusemide administered on day 1 to achieve a faster Na+ depletion 24 week randomised, double-blind parallel active-controlled trial. Patients with a history of GI ulcer or bleeding NOT excluded. EXCLUDED: any concomitant rheumatic condition, active or suspected peptic ulceration or GI bleeding, coagulation defect or any other disorder precluding NSAID use, malignancy, renal or hepatic disorder, inflammatory bowel disease, diclofenac intolerance, hypersensitivity to NSAIDs, COX-2selective NSAIDs or sulphonamide, any abnormal clinical or laboratory values pretreatment +others 24hr randomised, double-blind trial of healthy volunteers aged 21-49. EXCLUDED: history of coagulation disorder, bleeding tendency, drug allergy or GI disorder Placebo Single dose of: Celecoxib 100mg Celecoxib 400mg Celecoxib 800mg Ibuprofen 800mg 7 7 7 7 7 5 GI events required hospitalisation of patients on diclofenac. These included one ulcer. Haemoglobin levels were lower in diclofenac-treated patients Celecoxib and ibuprofen induced a significant decrease in systemic and renal prostacyclin biosynthesis, and similar effects have been reported with rofecoxib after chronic dosing in elderly patients Table 10. Published trials assessing safety of rofecoxib Author Study Design Treatment n Measures Langman, M. J.et al. (1999). Adverse upper gastrointestinal effects of rofecoxib compared with NSAIDs. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 282:1929-1933 Pooled analysis of patients from 8 phase 2b/3 trials of rofecoxib for OA Placebo Rofecoxib (12.5, 25 and 50mg od) NSAID (ibuprofen 800mg tds, diclofenac 50mg tds or nambumetone 1500mg od) 514 3357 Incidence of 1) upper GI perforations, 2) symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers, and 3) upper GI bleeding during treatment and within 14 days of drug discontinuation. Based on survival analysis of time to first GI incident , using prespecified criteria judged by a blinded, external adjudication committee. Cumulative incidence of dyspepsia up to 6 months was 23.5% with rofecoxib and 25.5% with NSAIDs, after which the rates converged. 12 month cumulative incidences of study drug discontinuation due to GI adverse effects was 5.2% for rofecoxib and 7.8% for NSAIDs (P=0.02). The cumulative incidence of ulcers, perforations and bleeding over 12 months was 1.3% with rofecoxib vs 1.8% with NSAIDs. Placebo (ceased after wk 16) Rofecoxib 25mg od Rofecoxib 50mg od Ibuprofen 800mg tds 177 Cumulative incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥3mm in diameter. Secondary endpoint was ulcers ≥5mm in diameter. Endoscopies performed at baseline, then wks 6,12 & 24 and at early discontinuation, moderate to severe upper GI symptoms ≥2d duration or at investigators discretion. Incidence of 3 and 5mm ulcers significantly lower in rofecoxib-treated groups compared to ibuprofen. Supported by Merck & Co. Inc. Laine, L., et al (1999). A randomzed trial comparing the effect of rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2-specific inhibitor, with that of ibuprofen on the gastroduodenal mucosa of patients with osteoarthritis. Gastroeneterology. 117:776-783 Lanza, F. L. et al. (1999). Specific inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 with MK0966 is associated with less gastroduodenal damage than either aspirin or ibuprofen. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 13:761-7 Catella-Lawson, F.et al. (1999). Effects of specific inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 on sodium balance, haemodynamics, and vasoactive eicosanoids. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 289:735-41 See article for details of trials. Both active and placebo controlled trials used. 6 month randomised doubleblind trial in OA patients ≥50yo. Patients with gastroduodenal erosions at baseline were eligible. EXCLUSIONS: active GI ulceration, pyloric obstruction or erosive oesophagitis. SCr>2mg/dL or CLCr 30mL/min (moderate renal impairment), unstable medical disease, prior cerebrovascular events; treatment with anticoagulants, ticlopidine, aspirin or corticosteroids. 7 day randomised, double-blind parallel study in healthy subjects (age range 18-54y) with endoscopically normal gastric and duodenal mucosae EXCLUSIONS: significant GI disease, history of GI surgery, recent thoracic or abdominal surgery, significant medical condition, history of using antacids, H2 antagonists, proton pump inhibitors or misoprostil or NSAID use in previous 2 weeks. Smoking, allergy to NSAIDs, alcohol dependence or ≥4 caffeinated beverages/day. 2 week randomised double-blind placebo and active controlled trial in healthy, elderly subjects without renal impairment All subjected to a fixed isocaloric diet (200mMol Na+ and 60-80mMol K+) EXCLUSIONS: hypertension or diabetes requiring pharmacologic intervention. SCr>2mg/dL and CLCr<50mL/min. Smokers or NSAID users. 1564 195 186 184 Adverse experiences analysed by life table method and log-rank test Placebo Rofecoxib 250mg od Ibuprofen 800mg tds Aspirin 650mg qid 51 51 51 17 Baseline endoscopy, physical examination and laboratory evaluations (chemistry, haematology and urinalysis). All repeated at day 8. Results and Comment At week 24, cumulative 5mm ulcer incidences were 4.6, 11.6 and 30.2% for rofecoxib 25, 50 and ibuprofen 2400mg groups respectively. Subgroup analysis at 12 weeks indicated that age≥65y, history of past GI events and presence of GI erosions at baseline were associated with an increased risk for ulcer development which was similar in all treatment groups Very short study. Proportion of patients with erosions or ulcerations significantly lower in rofecoxib-treated group compared to aspirin and ibuprofen, and not significantly different to placebo. Erosive mucosal injury score used to assess GI damage. Proportion of subjects developing erosions or ulcers compared to those with a normal mucosa or mucosal haemorrhages only. Placebo Rofecoxib 50mg od Indomethacin 50mg tid 12 12 12 24hr Na+ and K+ excretion assessed daily. GFR assessed days -1 and 14. Urinary excretion of Nacetyl-b-glucosaminidase as an index of proximal tubular dysfunction was assessed days -2 and 13. BP was assessed q4h between 8am and 8pm. Urinary excretion of TXA2 metabolites in addition to renal and external PGI2 metabolites assessed days -2,1 and 13. Short-term administration of rofecoxib and indomethacin induced a transient decline in sodium excretion during the first 72hrs of treatment. Indomethacin but not rofecoxib decreased GFR at day 14. TXA2 biosynthesis by platelets was affected by indomethacin only. Urinary excretion of renal and systemic metabolites of PGI2 were significantly decreased compared to baseline after treatment with rofecoxib and indomethacin. 6. Conclusions. Celebrex® and Vioxx® are not more effective as antiinflammatory agents than existing NSAIDs, although they have a slightly different adverse event profile. Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials have demonstrated a decreased incidence of gastric and duodenal ulceration compared to non selective NSAIDs. Patients with existing ulcers have largely been excluded from these published trials, but some trials have allowed enrolment of patients with a history of peptic or duodenal ulcers, and amongst these patients there did not appear to be an increased incidence of GI injury. As such, COX-2-selective NSAIDs appear to be drugs of choice for patients with gastric sensitivity to non-selective NSAIDs, and provide new options for patients who could not tolerate non-selective NSAIDs. COX-2-selective NSAIDs seem also to be an appropriate option for elderly patients (over the age of 65 years) with RA or OA who at high risk for adverse GI events with non-selective NSAIDs. Further trials are required to investigate the impact of H. pylori infection in patients who are treated with COX-2-selective NSAIDs, as is investigation into the role and efficacy of gastroprotective agents in combination with COX2-selective NSAIDs. COX-2-selective NSAIDs can lead to other problems in certain groups of patients, but it seems as though the same cautions apply as for traditional NSAIDs. For example, care should be exercised in prescribing COX-2-selective NSAIDs for patients with renal insufficiency, cardiac disease and thromboembolic disease. The drugs are contraindicated in pregnancy and in patients with aspirin-sensitive asthma. Because of the improved GI safety profile of these agents, there seems to be an assumption that these agents will be ‘safer’ drugs. In support of this, ADRAC has more than 300 reports describing adverse reactions to celecoxib in the first 3 months after marketing, and most of these events have been documented in clinical trials and described in the product information. The improved GI safety profile of celecoxib has formed the basis of the advertising campaign in this country, and this seems to have impacted on public and prescriber perceptions of the adverse event profile. (For a discussion of the issues involved in the promotion of drugs see http://www.camtech.net.au/malam and for a specific discussion of the advertising of celecoxib see http://www.camtech.net.au/malam/Inter.htm.) It is almost certain that adverse effects other than those reported in clinical trials will emerge as more people take these drugs. Prescribers who use these agents need to aware of the potential for adverse effects which may be new and rare events, and report these events to ADRAC. 7. References 1. Smith, W. L., L. J. Marnett. 1991. Prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase: Structure and catalysis. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1083: 1-17 2 Campbell, W. B., P. V. Halushka. 1996. Lipid-derived autacoids: eicosanoids and Platelet-activating factor. In Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 601-616. 3 Foegh, M. L., M. Hecker, P. W. Ramwell. 1998. The eicosanoids: Prostaglandins, thromboxanes, leukotrienes and related compounds. Seventh Edition ed. In Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, ed. B. G. Katzung, 304-318. Stamford, Connecticut, USA: Appleton & Lange 4 Mitchell, J. A., T. D. Warner. 1999. Cyclo-oxygenase-2: pharmacology, physiology, biochemistry and relevance to NSAID therapy. Br J Pharmacol. 128: 1121-1132 5 Kaplan-Machlis, B., B. S. Klostermeyer. 1999. The cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: safety and effectiveness. Ann. Pharmacotherapy. 33: 979-88 6 Fu, J. Y., J. L. Masferrer, K. Seibert, A. Raz, P. Needleman. 1990. The induction and suppression of prostaglandin H2 synthase (cyclooxygenase) in human monocytes. J Biol Chem. 265: 16737-40 7 Masferrer, J. L., B. S. Zweifel, K. Seibert, P. Needleman. 1990. Selective regulation of cellular cyclooxygenase by dexamethasone and endotoxin in mice. J Clin Invest. 86: 1375-9 8 Lee, S., E. Soyoola, P. Chanmugam, S. Hart, W. Sun, H. Zhong, S. Liou, D. Simmons, D. Hwang. 1992. Selective expression of mitogen-inducible cyclooxygenase in macrophages stimulated with lipopolysaccharide. J Biol Chem. 267: 25934-25938 9 Jones, D., D. Carlton, T. McIntyre, G. Zimmerman, S. Prescott. 1993. Molecular cloning of human prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase type II and demonstration of expression in response to cytokines. J Biol Chem. 268: 9049-9054 10 O’Sullivan, M., F. Chilton, E. Huggins, Jr, C. McCall. 1992. Lipopolysaccharide priming of alveolar macrophages for enhanced synthesis of prostanoids involves induction of a novel prostaglandin H synthase. J Biol Chem. 267: 14547-14550 11 Komhoff, M., H.-J. Grone, T. Klein, H. W. Seyberth, R. M. Nusing. 1997. Localization of cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in adult and fetal human kidney: implications for renal function. Am J Physiol. 272: F460-8 12 Topper, J. N., J. Cai, D. Falb, M. A. J. Gimbrone. 1996. Identification of vascular endothelial genes differentially responsive to fluid mechanical stimuli: cyclooxygenase-2, manganese superoxide dismutase, and endothelial cell nitric oxide synthase are selectively up-regulated by steady laminar shear stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93: 10417-22 13 Kaufmann, W. E., P. F. Worley, J. Pegg, M. Bremer, P. Isakson. 1996. COX-2, a synaptically induced enzyme, is expressed by excitatory neurons at postsynaptic sites in rat cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93: 2317-21 14 Cao, C., K. Matsumura, K. Yamagata, Y. Watanabe. 1996. Endothelial cells of the rat brain vasculature express cyclooxygenase-2 mRNA in response to systemic interleukin-1 beta: a possible site of prostaglandin synthesis responsible for fever. Brain Res. 733: 263-72 15 Dubois, R. N., S. B. Abramson, L. Crofford, R. A. Gupta, L. S. Simon, L. B. Van De Putte, P. E. Lipsky. 1998. Cyclooxygenase in biology and disease. Faseb J. 12: 1063-73 16 Gierse, J. K., J. J. McDonald, S. D. Hauser, S. H. Rangwala, C. M. Koboldt, K. Seibert. 1996. A single amino acid difference between cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and -2 (COX-2) reverses the selectivity of COX-2 specific inhibitors. J Biol Chem. 271: 15810-4 17 Kurumbail, R. G., A. M. Stevens, J. K. Gierse, J. J. McDonald, R. A. Stegeman, J. Y. Pak, D. Gildehaus, J. M. Miyashiro, T. D. Penning, K. Seibert, P. C. Isakson, W. C. Stallings. 1996. Structural basis for selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by anti-inflammatory agents [published erratum appears in Nature 1997 Feb 6;385(6616):555]. Nature. 384: 644-8 18 Hawkey, C. J. 1999. COX-2 inhibitors [see comments]. Lancet. 353: 307-14 19 Brooks, P., P. Emery, J. F. Evans, H. Fenner, C. J. Hawkey, C. Patrono, J. Smolen, F. Breedveld, R. Day, M. Dougados, E. W. Ehrich, J. Gijon-Banos, T. K. Kvien, M. H. Van Rijswijk, T. Warner, H. Zeidler. 1999. Interpreting the clinical significance of the differential inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2. Rheumatology. 38: 779-788 20 Smith, J. B., A. L. Willis. 1971. Aspirin selectivity inhibits prostaglandin production in human platelets. Chest. 59: 12S 21 Vane, J. R. 1971. Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a mechanism of action for the aspirin-like drugs. Nature. 1083: 1-17 22 Patrignani, P., M. R. Panara, A. Greco, O. Fusco, C. Natoli, S. Iacobelli, F. Cipollone, A. Ganci, C. Créminon, J. Maclouf, e. al. 1994. Biochemical and pharmacological characterization of the cyclooxygenase activity of human blood prostaglandin endoperoxide synthases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 271: 1705-12 23 Warner, T. D., F. Giuliano, I. Vojnovic, A. Bukasa, J. A. Mitchell, J. R. Vane. 1999. Nonsteroid drug selectivities for cyclo-oxygenase-1 rather than cyclo-oxygenase-2 are associated with human gastrointestinal toxicity: a full in vitro analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96: 7563-8 24 Mitchell, J. A., M. Saunders, P. J. Barnes, R. Newton, M. G. Belvisi. 1997. Sodium salicylate inhibits cyclo-oxygenase-2 activity independently of transcription factor (nuclear factor kappaB) activation: role of arachidonic acid. Mol Pharmacol. 51: 907-12 25 Hamilton, L. C., J. A. Mitchell, A. M. Tomlinson, T. D. Warner. 1999. Synergy between cyclo-oxygenase-2 induction and arachidonic acid supply in vivo: consequences for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug efficacy. Faseb J. 13: 245-51 26 Henry, D., L. L. Lim, L. A. Garcia Rodriguez, S. Perez Gutthann, J. L. Carson, M. Griffin, R. Savage, R. Logan, Y. Moride, C. Hawkey, S. Hill, J. T. Fries. 1996. Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis [see comments]. Br Med J. 312: 1563-6 27 1997. Therapeutic Guidelines: Analgesic. 3rd Edition ed. North Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Therapeutic Guidelines Ltd 28 Anderson, G. D., S. D. Hauser, K. L. McGarity, M. E. Bremer, P. C. Isakson, S. A. Gregory. 1996. Selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 reverses inflammation and expression of COX-2 and interleukin 6 in rat adjuvant arthritis. J Clin Invest. 97: 2672-9 29 Crofford, L. J., R. L. Wilder, A. P. Ristimäki, H. Sano, E. F. Remmers, H. R. Epps, T. Hla. 1994. Cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 expression in rheumatoid synovial tissues. Effects of interleukin-1 beta, phorbol ester, and corticosteroids J Clin Invest. 93: 1095-101 30 Siegle, I., T. Klein, J. T. Backman, J. G. Saal, R. M. Nüsing, P. Fritz. 1998. Expression of cyclooxygenase 1 and cyclooxygenase 2 in human synovial tissue: differential elevation of cyclooxygenase 2 in inflammatory joint diseases. Arthritis Rheum. 41: 122-9 31 Hishinuma, T., H. Nakamura, T. Sawai, M. Uzuki, Y. Itabash, M. Mizugaki. 1999. Microdetermination of prostaglandin E2 in joint fluid in rheumatoid arthritis patients using gas chromatography/selected ion monitoring. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 58: 179-186 32 Amin, A. R., M. Attur, R. N. Patel, G. D. Thakker, P. J. Marshall, J. Rediske, S. A. Stuchin, I. R. Patel, S. B. Abramson. 1997. Superinduction of cyclooxygenase-2 activity in human osteoarthritis-affected cartilage. Influence of nitric oxide. J Clin Invest.99: 1231-7 33 Davies, P., P. J. Bailey, M. M. Goldenberg, A. W. Ford-Hutchinson. 1994. The role of arachidonic acid oxygenation products in pain and inflammation. Annu Rev Immunol. 2: 335-57 34 Williams, T. J., M. J. Peck. 1977. Role of prostaglandin-mediated vasodilatation in inflammation. Nature. 270: 530-532 35 Yamamoto, T., N. Nozaki-Taguchi. 1996. Analysis of the effects of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 in spinal nociceptive transmission using indomethacin, a non-selective COX inhibitor, and NS-398, a COX-2 selective inhibitor. Brain Res. 739: 104-10 36 Coceani, F., E. S. Akarsu. 1998. Prostaglandin E2 in the pathogenesis of fever. An update. Ann NY Acad Sci. 856: 76-82 37 Zimmermann, K. C., M. Sarbia, K. Schror, A. A. Weber. 1998. Constitutive cyclooxygenase-2 expression in healthy human and rabbit gastric mucosa. Mol Pharmacol. 54: 536-40 38 Silverstein, F. E., D. Y. Graham, J. R. Senior, H. W. Davies, B. J. Struthers, e. al. 1995. Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients iwht rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 123: 241-9 39 Fries, J. F. 1991. NSAID gastropathy: the second most deadly rheumatic disease? Epidemiology and risk appraisal. J Rheumatol Suppl. 28: 6-10 40 Wolfe, M. M., D. R. Lichtenstein, G. Singh. 1999. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med. 340: 1888-1899 41 MacDonald, T. M., S. V. Morant, G. C. Robinson, M. J. Shield, M. M. McGilchrist, F. E. Murray, D. G. McDevitt. 1997. Association of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with continued exposure: cohort study. Br Med J. 315: 1333-7 42 Singh, G., G. Triadafilopoulus. 1999. Epidemiology of NSAID-induced GI complications. J Rheumatol. 26 Suppl 56: 18-24 43 Singh, G., D. R. Ramey, D. Morfeld, H. Shi, H. T. Hatoum, J. F. Fries. 1996. Gastrointestinal tract complications of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective observational cohort study. Arch Intern Med. 156: 1530-6 44 Hawkey, C. J. 1996. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy: causes and treatment. Scand J Gastroenterol. Suppl. 220: 124-7 45 McManus, P., J. G. Primrose, D. A. Henry, D. J. Birkett, J. Lindner, R. O. Day. 1996. Pattern of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in Australia 1990-1994. A report from the Drug Utilization Sub-Committee of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee [see comments]. Med J Aust. 164: 589-92 46 Henry, D., A. Dobson, C. Turner. 1993. Variability in the risk of major gastrointestinal complications from nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gastroenterology. 105: 1078-88 47 Graham, D. Y. 1996. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, helocobacter pylori, and ulcers: where we stand. Am J Gastroenterol. 91: 2080-2086 48 Schoen, R. T., R. J. Vender. 1989. Mechanisms of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastric damage. Am J Med. 86: 44958 49 Whittle, B. J. R., G. A. Higgs, K. E. Eakins, S. Moncada, J. R. Vane. 1980. Selective inhibition of prostaglandin production in inflammatory exudates and gastric mucosa. Nature. 284: 271-3 50 Levi, S., C. Shaw-Smith. 1994. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: how do they damage the gut? Br J Rheumatol. 33: 605-612 51 Bamba, H., S. Ota, A. Kato, F. Matsuzaki. 1998. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may delay the repair of gastric mucosa by suppressing prostaglandin-mediated increase of hepatocyte growth factor production. BiochemBiophys Res Commun. 245: 567-71 52 Maliekal, J., C. M. Elboim. 1995. Gastrointestinal complications associated with intramuscular ketorolac tromethamine therapy in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother. 29: 698-701 53 Lanza, F. L., G. L. J. Royer, R. S. Nelson. 1980. Endoscopic evaluation of the effects of aspirin, buffered aspirin, and enteric-coated aspirin on gastric and duodenal mucosa. N Engl J Med. 303: 136-8 54 Lichtenstein, D. R., S. Syngal, M. M. Wolfe. 1995. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the gastrointestinal tract. The doubleedged sword. Arthritis Rheum. 38: 5-18 55 Graham, D. Y. 1997. High dose famotidine for prevention of NSAID ulcers? (Editorial). Gastroenterology. 112: 2143-5 56 Graham, D. Y., P. D. Klein, A. R. Opekun, T. W. Boutton. 1988. Effect of age on the frequency of active Campylobacter pylori infection diagnosed by the [13C]urea breath test in normal subjects and patients with peptic ulcer disease. J Infect Dis. 157: 777-80 57 Chan, F. K., J. J. Sung, S. C. Chung, K. F. To, M. Y. Yung, V. K. Leung, Y. T. Lee, C. S. Chan, E. K. Li, J. Woo. 1997. Randomised trial of eradication of Helicobacter pylori before non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy to prevent peptic ulcers [see comments]. Lancet. 350: 975-9 58 Hawkey, C. J., Z. Tulassay, L. Szczepanski, C. J. van Rensburg, A. Filipowicz-Sosnowska, A. Lanas, C. M. Wason, R. A. Peacock, K. R. Gillon. 1998. Randomised controlled trial of Helicobacter pylori eradication in patients on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: HELP NSAIDs study. Helicobacter Eradication for Lesion Prevention [see comments]. Lancet. 352: 1016-21 59 Sawaoka, H., S. Kawano, S. Tsuji, M. Tsuji, W. Sun, E. S. Gunawan, M. Hori. 1998. Helicobacter pylori infection induces cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human gastric mucosa. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 59: 313-6 60 McCarthy, C. J., L. J. Crofford, J. Greenson, J. M. Scheiman. 1999. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in gastric antral mucosa before and after eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 94: 1218-23 61 Mizuno, H., C. Sakamoto, K. Matsuda, K. Wada, T. Uchida, H. Noguchi, T. Akamatsu, M. Kasuga. 1997. Induction of cyclooxygenase 2 in gastric mucosal lesions and its inhibition by the specific antagonist delays healing in mice [see comments]. Gastroenterology. 112: 387-97 62 Jones, M. K., H. Wang, B. M. Peskar, E. Levin, R. M. Itani, I. J. Sarfeh, A. S. Tarnawski. 1999. Inhibition of angiogenesis by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: insight into mechanisms and implications for cancer growth and ulcer healing. Nat Med. 5: 1418-23 63 Sheng, H., J. Shao, S. C. Kirkland, P. Isakson, R. J. Coffey, J. Morrow, R. D. Beauchamp, R. N. DuBois. 1997. Inhibition of human colon cancer cell growth by selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2. J Clin Invest. 99: 2254-9 64 Murata, H., S. Kawano, S. Tsuji, M. Tsuji, H. Sawaoka, Y. Kimura, H. Shiozaki, M. Hori. 1999. Cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression enhances lymphatic invasion and metastasis in human gastric carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 94: 451-5 65 Kawamori, T., C. V. Rao, K. Seibert, B. S. Reddy. 1998. Chemopreventive activity of celecoxib, a specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, against colon carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 58: 409-12 66 Dimberg, J., A. Samuelsson, A. Hugander, P. Soderkvist. 1999. Differential expression of cyclooxygenase 2 in human colorectal cancer. Gut. 45: 730-732 67 Eberhart, C. E., R. J. Coffey, A. Radhika, F. M. Giardiello, S. Ferrenbach, R. N. DuBois. 1994. Up-regulation of cyclooxygenase 2 gene expression in human colorectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas. Gastroenterology. 107: 1183-8 68 Schlondorff, D. 1986. Renal prostaglandin synthesis. Sites of production and specific actions of prostaglandins. Am J Med. 81: 1-11 69 Kaojarern, S., P. Chennavasin, S. Anderson, D. C. Brater. 1983. Nephron site of effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on solute excretion in humans. Am J Physiol. 244: F134-9 70 Clive, D. M., J. S. Stoff. 1984. Clinical syndromes associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. I Med. 310: 563-572 71 Patrono, C., M. J. Dunn. 1987. The clinical significance of inhibition of renal prostaglandin synthesis. Kidney Int. 32: 1-12 72 Henry, D., J. Page, I. Whyte, R. Nanra, C. Hall. 1997. Consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the development of functional renal impairment in elderly subjects. Results of a case-control study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 44: 85-90 73 Murray, M. D., D. C. Brater. 1993. Renal toxicity of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 33: 43565 74 Whelton, A. 1999. Nephrotoxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: physiologic foundations and clinical implications. Am J Med. 106: 13S-24S 75 DeFronzo, R. A. 1980. Hyperkalemia and hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism [clinical conference]. Kidney Int. 17: 118-34 76 Harris, R. C., J. A. McKanna, Y. Akai, H. R. Jacobson, R. N. Dubois, M. D. Breyer. 1994. Cyclooxygenase-2 is associated with the macula densa of rat kidney and increases with salt restriction. J Clin Invest. 94: 2504-10 77 Harding, P., D. H. Sigmon, M. E. Alfie, P. L. Huang, M. C. Fishman, W. H. Beierwaltes, O. A. Carretero. 1997. Cyclooxygenase-2 mediates increased renal renin content induced by low-sodium diet. Hypertension. 29: 297-302 78 Cheng, H. F., J. L. Wang, M. Z. Zhang, Y. Miyazaki, I. Ichikawa, J. A. McKanna, R. C. Harris. 1999. Angiotensin II attenuates renal cortical cyclooxygenase-2 expression. J Clin Invest.103: 953-61 79 Morham, S. C., R. Langenbach, L. C.D., e. al. 1995. Prostaglandin synthase-2 gene causes severe renal pathology in the mouse. Cell. 83: 473-82 80 Dinchuk, J. E., B. D. Car, R. J. Focht, J. J. Johnston, B. D. Jaffee, M. B. Covington, N. R. Contel, V. M. Eng, R. J. Collins, P. M. Czerniak, e. al. 1995. Renal abnormalities and an altered inflammatory response in mice lacking cyclooxygenase II. Nature. 378: 406-9 81 Langenbach, R., S. G. Morham, H. F. Tiano, C. D. Loftin, B. I. Ghanayem, P. C. Chulada, J. F. Mahler, C. A. Lee, E. H. Goulding, K. D. Kluckman, e. al. 1995. Prostaglandin synthase 1 gene disruption in mice reduces arachidonic acid-induced inflammation and indomethacin-induced gastric ulceration. Cell. 83: 483-92 82 Schafer, A. I. 1999. Effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy on platelets. Am J Med. 106: 25S-36S 83 Murata, T., F. Ushikubi, T. Matsuoka, M. Hirata, A. Yamasaki, Y. Sugimoto, A. Ichikawa, Y. Aze, T. Tanaka, N. Yoshida, A. Ueno, S. Oh-ishi, S. Narumiya. 1997. Altered pain perception and inflammatory response in mice lacking prostacyclin receptor. Nature. 388: 678-682 84 McAdam, B. F., F. Catella-Lawson, I. A. Mardini, S. Kapoor, J. A. Lawson, G. A. FitzGerald. 1999. Systemic biosynthesis of prostacyclin by cyclooxygenase (COX)-2: the human pharmacology of a selective inhibitor of COX-2 [published erratum appears in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 May 11;96(10):5890]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96: 272-7 85 Zuckerman, H., U. Reiss, I. Rubinstein. 1974. Inhibition of human premature labor by indomethacin. Obstet Gynecol. 44: 787-92 86 Hammerman, C. 1995. Patent ductus arteriosus. Clinical relevance of prostaglandins and prostaglandin inhibitors in PDA pathophysiology and treatment. Clin Perinatol. 22: 457-79 87 1999. Celecoxib for arthritis. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 41: 11-2 88 Searle. 1999. Approved product information. 89 1999. Potential interaction: Celebrex® (celecoxib) and warfarin. FDA MedWatch Safety Information Summary. May 90 1999. Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis and pain. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 41: 59-61 91 Merck Sharp & Dohme (Aust.) Pty Ltd. 1999. Approved product information. 92 Simon, L. S., F. L. Lanza, P. E. Lipsky, R. C. Hubbard, S. Talwalker, B. D. Schwartz, P. C. Isakson, G. S. Geis. 1998. Preliminary study of the safety and efficacy of SC-58635, a novel cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor: efficacy and safety in two placebo-controlled trials in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and studies of gastrointestinal and platelet effects. Arthritis Rheum. 41: 1591-602 93 Saag, K., C. Fisher, J. McKay, E. Erich, P. L. Zhao, J. Bolognese, B. Seidenberg, B. Daniels. 1998. MK-0966, a specific COX-2 inhibitor, has clinical efficacy comparable to ibuprofen in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a 6-week controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 41: S196 94 Cannon, G., J. Caldwell, P. Holt, B. McLean, Q. Zeng, E. Ehrich, B. Seidenberg, J. Bolognese, B. Daniels. 1998. MK-0966, a specific COX-2 inhibitor, has clinical efficacy comparable to diclofenac in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a 26-week controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 41: S196 Contributing authors Reviewers Dr Stephen Kerr Decision Support Officer National Prescribing Service Level 1/31 Buckingham Street Surry Hills. NSW. 2010. Associate Professor H Patrick McNeil Department of Rheumatology Prince of Wales Hospital Ms Joy Gailer Clinical Pharmacist Drug and Therapeutics Information Service Repatriation General Hospital Daws Rd Daws Park. SA. 5041 Dr John Dowden Editor Australian Prescriber