Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials

doi:10.1136/ard.2006.068650

Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 October; 66(10): 1296–1304.

Published online 2007 March 7. doi: 10.1136/ard.2006.068650

PMCID: PMC1994282

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials

P A Scott, G H Kingsley, C M Smith, E H Choy, and D L Scott

P A Scott, Department of Cardiology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK

G H Kingsley, C M Smith, E H Choy, D L Scott, Department of Rheumatology, Kings College London School of Medicine, London, UK

Correspondence to: Professor D L Scott
Department of Rheumatology, Kings College London School of Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Kings College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RS, UK; david.l.scott@kcl.ac.uk

Accepted February 18, 2007.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Objective

The comparative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and traditional non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was determined.

Methods

The results of studies of a suitable size in colonic adenoma and arthritis—that had been published in English and from which crude data about MIs could be extracted—were evaluated. Medline, Embase and Cinahl (2000–2006) databases, as well as published bibliographies, were used as data sources. Systematic reviews examined MI risks in case‐control and cohort studies, as well as in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

14 case‐control studies (74

673 MI patients, 368

968 controls) showed no significant association of NSAIDs with MI in a random‐effects model (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.37) and a small risk of MI in a fixed‐effects model (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35). Sensitivity analyses showed higher risks of MI in large European studies involving matched controls. Six cohort studies (387

983 patient years, 1

120

812 control years) showed no significant risk of MI with NSAIDs (RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07); the risk was higher with rofecoxib (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.34) but not with any other NSAIDs. Four RCTs of NSAIDs in colonic adenoma (6000 patients) showed an increased risk of MI (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01). Fourteen RCTs in arthritis (45

425 patients) showed more MIs with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs (Peto OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4), but fewer serious upper gastrointestinal events (Peto OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53).

Conclusion

The overall risk of MI with NSAIDs and cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs was small; rofecoxib showed the highest risk. There was an increased MI risk with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs compared with NSAIDs, but less serious upper gastrointestinal toxicity.

Keywords: NSAIDs, cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs, adverse events, myocardial infarction, systematic review

Emphasis on the adverse effects of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has moved from their upper gastrointestinal (GI) to their cardiovascular toxicity.¹ This reflects widespread concern that cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs in general, and rofecoxib in particular, increase the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with traditional NSAIDs.² Like other cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs, rofecoxib minimises serious GI toxicity whilst retaining anti‐inflammatory efficacy. Although these benefits have been established experimentally in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), a large trial by Bombardier et al³ (the Vigor trial) showed an excess of MIs with rofecoxib. When a second RCT in colonic adenoma also reported an excess of MIs, rofecoxib was withdrawn worldwide.⁴ Since then, there has been substantial debate about the risk of MI with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs in particular and with NSAIDs in general.

In addition to the debate amongst clinicians and patients on the cardiovascular toxicity of NSAIDs, regulators have also taken different views. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁵ has concluded that there are significant cardiovascular risks with all NSAIDs, while the European Medicines Agency has concluded that cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs present only specific risks.⁶^,7 Any potential risk of MI needs to be placed in the context of the overall risks of serious events with NSAIDs, including upper GI events. The authors have therefore evaluated the available published evidence by undertaking systematic reviews of the risk of MI with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and traditional NSAIDs in observational studies, and with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs in RCTs in a non‐rheumatic disease (colonic adenoma) and in arthritis. Other published systematic reviews of MI in RCTs of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs were also examined, to ensure consistency in interpretation. Finally, the risks of MI and serious upper GI events in RCTs of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs in arthritis were compared.

Methods

Search strategies

Medline, Embase and Cinahl databases (January 2000 to June 2006) were searched to find both primary references and published systematic reviews. The authors also searched published bibliographies and the Cochrane Library. The following search terms were used: non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, Cox‐2 inhibitors, rofecoxib, celecoxib, lumiracoxib, valdecoxib, etoricoxib, ibuprofen, diclofenac, naproxen, myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, colonic adenoma and colonic neoplasm. Both generic and proprietary drug names were used as search terms. The authors only considered studies published in English. Studies that contained insufficient information about cardiac adverse events to enable the assessment of the presence or absence of MIs, or from which raw numerical data about MIs could not be extracted, were excluded. Studies of meloxicam were also excluded due to the debate on its degree of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 selectivity.⁸^,9

Types of study

Four relevant categories of peer‐reviewed paper were identified:

case‐control and cohort studies that examined the association between the occurrence of MI and NSAIDs, and that had enrolled at least 100 patients;
RCTs of NSAIDs in patients with colonic adenoma, where at least 100 patients had been enrolled;
RCTs comparing cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs with traditional NSAIDs in arthritis, where at least 100 patients had been enrolled; these studies were also evaluated to assess the development of complicated upper GI ulcers, defined by Silverstein et al¹⁰ as perforation, obstruction or upper GI bleeding;
published systematic reviews of RCTs of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs focusing on the occurrence of MIs.

Details of the case‐control studies, cohort studies and RCTs evaluated are summarised in table 11.

Table 1

Details of the studies included in the systematic reviews

Data extraction

Two researchers independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on year of publication, population source, study design, study size, study setting, case definition, exposure definition, reference group, funding source, study period and outcomes. Where their initial conclusions did not agree (in the case of two studies), the researchers reviewed these studies together and reached a joint conclusion.

Statistics

The results from observational studies and RCTs were analysed using Review Manager V.4.2 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Denmark). The relative risk (RR) of MI in RCTs and cohort studies, and the random‐ and fixed‐effects odds ratios (ORs) in case‐control studies were evaluated. In studies with few or no events the Peto OR was used.

To assess for heterogeneity in the observational studies, separate subgroup meta‐analyses were carried out. Stratification was by sample size, country of study, source of funding, study design (matched versus unmatched) and definition of exposure for the case‐control studies, and by type of study design for the cohort studies. In addition, a funnel plot was produced to look for publication bias in the case‐control studies.

Quality

The quality of the RCTs was judged using the Jadad scoring instrument.¹¹ Non‐RCT studies were judged using factors recommended by the Standards for the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Group¹²; the authors scored six items (items 6–11) from the second version of the STROBE statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist.¹³

Results

Systematic review of MI in observational studies of NSAID use

Out of a total of 806 studies found, 705 were retrieved that were in English and involved human subjects, and 24 potentially relevant studies were identified. Four of these were excluded because they evaluated only one or two drugs or did not have suitable comparable groups.¹⁴^,15^,16^,17 Fourteen studies had case‐control designs (including one retrospective cohort study analysed using a case‐control approach) and six had cohort designs ((tablestables 2 and 33).¹⁸^,19^,20^,21^,22^,23^,24^,25^,26^,27^,28^,29^,30^,31^,32^,33^,34^,35^,36^,37

Table 2

Case‐control studies of myocardial infarction in patients receiving non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

Table 3

Cohort studies of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients receiving non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

The 14 case‐control studies enrolled 74

673 MI patients who were either taking NSAIDs or had recent exposure to NSAIDs and 368

968 comparable controls.¹⁸^,19^,20^,21^,22^,23^,24^,25^,26^,27^,28^,29^,30^,31 Twelve of these studies evaluated NSAID use from prescription data and two used telephone interviews. Overall, there was no significant association between NSAID use and MI (fig 11)) using a random‐effects model (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.37), but there was a small risk of MI using a fixed‐effects model (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35). Sensitivity analysis ((tablestables 2 and 33)) showed that a number of factors influenced potential risk. ORs (fixed and random) were larger in studies that involved substantial numbers of patients, only enrolled European patients, had matched controls and did not involve industrial sponsorship. Evaluating the risks of individual commonly used drugs showed that the highest risks were with rofecoxib (OR 1.19 and 1.14, respectively, in random‐effects and fixed‐effects models). Other NSAIDs—celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen and naproxen—showed either no increased or minimally increased risks in these models ((tablestables 2 and 33).). Two studies evaluated the effects of different rofecoxib doses using the random‐effects model; high doses (>25 mg daily) showed a greater risk of MI (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 7.0) than lower doses (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).²⁵^,29

Figure 1

Analysis of 14 case‐control and six cohort studies of myocardial infarction in users and non‐users of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. n, events; N, subjects.

The six cohort studies enrolled 529

090 patients (387

983 years of follow‐up) currently taking NSAIDs and 604

871 controls (1

120

812 years of follow‐up).³²^,33^,34^,35^,36^,37 They identified NSAID use from prescription data. There was no overall risk (fig 11)) of developing MI whilst receiving NSAIDs (RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07). Rofecoxib, but none of the other commonly used NSAIDs ((tablestables 2 and 33),), showed an increased risk of MI (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.34). One study evaluated the effects of different rofecoxib doses³³; the relative risk of MI with high doses (>25 mg daily) was 1.6 (95%CI 0.9 to 2.8) and with lower doses was 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.4), but neither difference was significant.

Figure 3

Analysis of myocardial infarction in randomised controlled trials of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in colonic adenoma. n, events; N, subjects.

Both meta‐analyses showed significant heterogeneity (case‐control studies, χ² 622, df 13, p<0.001; cohort studies, χ² 63, df 5, p<0.001). In the case‐control studies, subgroup analysis suggested that country of study, sample size and definition of NSAID exposure (prescription data versus telephone interview) all contributed to the heterogeneity, while funding source did not. A funnel plot showed some evidence of publication bias, and there is evidence for an over‐reporting of small negative studies (fig 22).). In the cohort studies, removing one study whose design was significantly different (case‐control study analysed as a cohort study) reduced the heterogeneity considerably (χ² 27, df 4, p<0.001).³⁵ However, with both types of study, despite subgroup stratification, there was there was still significant unexplained residual heterogeneity.

Figure 2

Funnel plot for 14 case‐control studies, plotting standard errors against odds ratios (ORs) (fixed). SE, standard error.

Systematic review of MI in RCTs of NSAIDs in colonic adenoma

Out of a total of 220 studies found in colonic adenoma, 167 that were published in English and involved human subjects were retrieved, and 26 were identified as potentially relevant. Only four of these were large placebo‐controlled RCTs of NSAIDs in colonic adenoma⁴^,38^,39^,40; we specifically omitted the low‐dose aspirin group (82 mg) used in one of these trials from our review, as this dose is never used for its anti‐inflammatory effects.³⁸ The RCTs in these studies involved aspirin, rofecoxib and celecoxib, with half the celecoxib‐treated patients taking a dose higher than that recommended in routine practice (800 mg daily). These studies enrolled 3332 cases and 2668 controls; 44 cases and 13 controls experienced an MI. As fig 33 shows, the risk of MI was increased for all three NSAIDs studied (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01).

Systematic review of MI in RCTs of NSAIDs in arthritis

Seven relevant published systematic reviews in arthritis reporting cardiovascular adverse reactions with celecoxib (three reviews), rofecoxib (two reviews), lumiracoxib (one review), and all cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and traditional NSAIDs (one review) were identified.¹^,41^,42^,43^,44^,45^,46 We excluded four systematic reviews that did not focus on MIs.⁴⁷^,48^,49^,50

The four most recently published systematic reviews¹^,43^,44^,45 that focused on MI summarised 138 trials involving 145

373 patients (table 44).). All reported small increases in the risk of MI with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs. The highest risk was with rofecoxib (RR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.0) and this risk was most marked at high doses (RR 2.8; 95% CI 1.2 to 6.4). An additional systematic review specifically compared celecoxib with placebo and other comparators in six RCTs enrolling 12

780 patients; it found an increased risk of MI with celecoxib (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.08). These systematic reviews did not specifically compare the risk of MI with the risk of serious upper GI events.

Table 4

Summary of systematic reviews of myocardial infarction (MI) with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs

Comparison of MI with serious upper GI events in RCTs of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs

Out of a total of 452 studies found, 188 were retrieved that were in English and involved human subjects; of these, 50 RCTs were identified that reported comparisons of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs with traditional NSAIDs. Thirty‐six RCTs were excluded as they gave insufficient information about the occurrence of MIs.⁵¹^,52^,53^,54^,55^,56^,57^,58^,59^,60^,61^,62^,63^,64^,65^,66^,67^,68^,69^,70^,71^,72^,73^,74^,75^,76^,77^,78^,79^,80^,81^,82^,83^,84^,85^,86 The remaining 14 RCTs allowed comparisons of MI with serious upper GI adverse events.³^,10^,87^,88^,89^,90^,91^,92^,93^,94^,95^,96^,97^,98 These trials enrolled 45

425 patients into active treatment groups receiving either a cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drug or a traditional NSAID; they reported 97 MIs. Three trials used double the highest‐recommended long‐term doses of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs.³^,10^,90 We also took into account recently published additional data about the number of MIs in the Vigor trial.⁹⁹ There was a significant increase in the number of MIs with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs (Peto OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4), as shown in table 55.. This increase was mainly due to the results from a single trial, the Vigor trial that compared rofecoxib with naproxen.³

Table 5

Comparison of the risks of myocardial infarction (MI) and complicated ulcers in RCTs of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs

These trials also resulted in 216 serious upper GI events and cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs decreased the risk of serious upper GI events (Peto OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53). Complicated upper GI events occurred in 61 patients given cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and 155 patients given traditional NSAIDs. In contrast, MIs occurred in 61 patients given cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and 36 patients given traditional NSAIDs. Consequently, reductions in complicated upper GI events with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs occurred at the same time as an increase in MIs.

Discussion

The overall risk of MI does not appear to be substantially increased with standard doses of most traditional NSAIDs and most cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs. Rofecoxib consistently showed a significant increase in the risk of MI in all types of study. Some other cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and some traditional NSAIDs showed small increases in the risk of an MI in certain types of study, particularly in case‐control studies analysed using a fixed‐effects OR model. This analysis includes all types of peer‐reviewed evidence, ranging from observational studies of NSAID use in MI patients to RCTs in colonic adenoma and an overview of NSAID RCTs in arthritis. It compares MI and GI risks in RCTs of NSAIDs. It is also independent of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies.

The most definitive evidence that NSAIDs increase the risk of MI comes from RCTs in patients with colonic adenoma who, in comparison with patients with rheumatoid arthritis, do not have a specific pre‐existing cardiovascular risk. However, as the number of these trials is small, caution is required in generalising their findings. One RCT involved a supratherapeutic dose of celecoxib (800 mg daily) and may not be relevant to patients using standard doses. The apparent risk with aspirin is based on limited evidence; one RCT on aspirin that was evaluated showed a high RR of 5.0 (95% CI 0.6 to 43.5) for MI, but the study's small size means that this risk is not significant.³⁸ However, in support of the view that anti‐inflammatory doses of aspirin may increase serious vascular side‐effects, the combined frequency of MI and stroke with 323 mg aspirin was significantly increased in this trial (10 events with aspirin, one event with placebo; RR 10.0 (95% CI 1.3 to 77.7)). These findings must be set against the negative effects of low‐dose aspirin in the same study (omitted from the formal systematic review), which suggests that dosing may be of critical importance.

Although RCTs in arthritis comparing cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs with traditional NSAIDs show an excess of MIs, this finding is heavily influenced by a single RCT of rofecoxib: the Vigor trial.³ Not only did this trial exclusively enrol patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who have an underlying increased frequency of MI, but it also compared double the recommended dose of rofecoxib with traditional doses of naproxen.¹⁰⁰ Its relevance to routine practice is therefore uncertain. The data about MI risks from traditional NSAIDs are weak. RCTs performed before 2000 did not routinely report MIs and almost all these studies were of a relatively small size and short duration. Even a 5‐year RCT of traditional NSAIDs that enrolled 802 patients with osteoarthritis did not specifically report MIs, although there were more cardiovascular adverse events with indomethacin (12/202 (6%) cases) than with placebo (8/303 (3%) cases).¹⁰¹ The dearth of data on MI before 2000 makes it impractical to assess cardiac risks in these earlier RCTs.

We found that some case‐control studies showed a small overall increase in the risk of MI, particularly with rofecoxib; however, cohort studies indicated no overall added risk. A number of factors—including small study size, selection of potentially inappropriate controls and the population studied—influenced the assessment of risk. A number of confounding factors may also affect the results in these observational studies. Patients given different NSAIDs may have different underlying MI risks; for example, cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs were recommended for patients over 65 years of age, who often have underlying MI risks, and case‐control studies could therefore overestimate their MI risks. We did not correct for variations in risk factors because individual studies require different types of correction; however, the counter‐arguments in favour of such correction are acknowledged.¹⁰²

Another confounding factor, confounding by indication, seems more important and cannot be overcome by corrections. It is exemplified by a Danish mortality study with paracetamol, which reported a standardised mortality rate for MI of 1.6 in 50

000 patients prescribed paracetamol.¹⁰³ The most likely explanation for this relationship is that patients who are unwell with conditions such as ischaemic heart disease often take a readily available symptomatic remedy such as paracetamol. This is an example of confounding by indication, and such confounding may explain some or all of the association of NSAIDs with MIs in observational studies.

Furthermore, many reviews use not only published data but also material provided by pharmaceutical companies or obtained from regulatory bodies, such as the FDA, for the sake of completeness. However, we only evaluated data published in peer‐reviewed journals because we believe that such papers meet a guaranteed standard of reporting that is less prone to idiosyncratic variability and maintains independence.

Given the importance of cardiovascular safety with NSAIDs, it is unsurprising that several groups have reported systematic analyses of RCTs¹^,41^,42^,43^,44^,45 and observational studies.¹⁰⁴ These studies have evaluated different data based on varying search and selection strategies. However, their main conclusions mirror our own: a definite risk with rofecoxib, a possible risk with diclofenac, and small or nonexistent risks with other cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs and traditional NSAIDs. The interpretation of the findings varies between reviews, reflecting the different values of individual authors when faced with complex data. Interestingly, although it was published after the search period of our review, the Medal trial—which compared etoricoxib with diclofenac in over 34

000 patients—found no difference in the risk of MI between these two drugs.¹⁰⁵ The interpretation of this result depends on the assessment of risk with diclofenac, which the results of our review suggest is above that with some other traditional NSAIDs.

Cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs were developed to meet the need for effective NSAIDs with improved GI safety. In retrospect, this aim was incomplete; the key need is improved overall safety. Falling GI risks with NSAIDs, reflecting the use of reduced doses of traditional NSAIDs and the co‐prescribing of proton‐pump inhibitors, emphasise the need to evaluate overall safety.¹⁰⁶ Rofecoxib reduced serious GI toxicity but increased the risk of MI, giving it a different side‐effect profile to traditional NSAIDs. The increased risks of MIs with rofecoxib together with its improved GI safety ensured that overall it was neither more nor less safe than conventional NSAIDs. Part of the concern about rofecoxib¹⁰⁷^,108 reflects the representation of its relative safety.¹⁰⁹^,110 In this context, although reports of cardiac risks with cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs imply that naproxen is a safe NSAID, a study of 18

424 deaths in individuals who were prescribed NSAIDs found that mortality was highest with naproxen (2.7 times the mortality with nabumetone) and that it was the least safe of four traditional NSAIDs.¹¹¹

Taken as a whole, the available evidence suggests that the risks of MI with NSAIDs other than rofecoxib are not large, especially when compared with preventable MI risk factors such as smoking.¹¹² The risks of most side‐effects of NSAIDs are greatest when high doses are given for prolonged periods to elderly patients and such an approach should be avoided. The multiplicity of cardiovascular side‐effects with NSAIDs—particularly hypertension and fluid retention—mean that caution should also be exercised when considering the prescription of NSAIDs for patients with high cardiovascular risk. However, for some patients with severe arthritis there may be no realistic alternative and they will need access to effective treatment with information about its risks and benefits. Giving patients informed choice about risks and being involved in taking decisions about therapy is supported by recent regulatory guidance.¹¹³ Finally, economic and decision analyses do not favour cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs in the majority of cases, although they recognise that some patients benefit from these drugs.¹¹⁴^,115

Acknowledgements

The research forms part of an overarching project in the Department of Rheumatology at King's College on assessing the risks and benefits of the different treatments for arthritis to deliver quality clinical care. We are pleased to acknowledge financial support for this study from the Arthritis Research Campaign (Programme Grant S0682 and Integrated Clinical Arthritis Centre Grant P0572) and from National Health Service R&D Support Funding to University Hospital Lewisham and Kings College Hospital.

Abbreviations

GI - gastrointestinal

MI - myocardial infarction

NSAID - non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug

OR - odds ratio

RCT - randomised controlled trial

RR - relative risk

Footnotes

Competing interests: PAS, GHK and CMS have received no direct payments from companies involved in the evaluation or marketing of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in the last 5 years, including support to attend meetings, fees for consulting, and funding for research or educational support. EHC and DLS have received clinical trial grants, unrestricted educational grants and personal sponsorship for attending meetings from many companies involved in clinical trials and marketing of current anti‐rheumatic drugs, including all those involved in cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific drugs. DLS has received fees for speaking at meetings, membership of national and international advisory boards, and giving professional advice from many pharmaceutical companies in the last 5 years including Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo Pharmaceuticals and Wyeth. He is medical adviser to Arthritis Care and Medical Vice‐Chair of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, which have both received unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical companies. No pharmaceutical company or adviser or representative has been involved directly or indirectly in the inception, preparation or writing of this manuscript; its contents have not been disclosed to any pharmaceutical company before submission.

Contributions to authorship: conception, DLS, PAS, GHK; design, CMS, EHC; analysis/interpretation of data, PAS, DLS, EHC; drafting article, PAS, GHK, DLS; critical revisions, all authors.

References

1. Jüni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe P A, Egger M. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta‐analysis. Lancet 2004. 3642021–2029.2029. [PubMed]

2. Merck & Co Inc http://www.vioxx.com/vioxx/documents/english/vioxx_press_release.pdf .

3. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos‐Vargas R. et al Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000. 3431520–1528.1528. [PubMed]

4. Bresalier R S, Sandler R S, Quan H, Bolognese J A. et al Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 2005. 3521092–1102.1102. [PubMed]

5. US Food and Drugs Administration http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/InfoSheets/HCP/NS_NSAIDsHCP.pdf .

6. European Medicines Agency http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pr/20776605en.pdf .

7. European Medicines Agency http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pr/34345605en.pdf .

8. Hayllar J, Bjarnason I. Cox‐2 inhibitors, and the gut. Lancet 1995. 3461629.

9. Kato M, Nishida S, Kitasato H, Sakata N, Kawai S. Cyclooxygenase‐1 and cyclooxygenase‐2 selectivity of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs: investigation using human peripheral monocytes. J Pharm Pharmacol 2001. 531679–1685.1685. [PubMed]

10. Silverstein F E, Faich G, Goldstein J L, Simon L S, Pincus T, Whelton A. et al Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis—The CLASS study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000. 2841247–1255.1255. [PubMed]

11. Jadad A R, Moore R A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds D J, Gavaghan D J. et al Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials 1996. 171–12.12. [PubMed]

12. von Elm E, Egger M. The scandal of poor epidemiological research. BMJ 2004. 329868–869.869. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

13. STROBE Statement http://www.strobe‐statement.org/PDF/STROBE‐Checklist‐Version2.pdf .

14. Watson D J, Rhodes T, Cai B, Guess H A. Lower risk of thromboembolic cardiovascular events with naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Intern Med 2002. 1621105–1110.1110. [PubMed]

15. Solomon D H, Schneeweiss S, Glynn R J, Kiyota Y, Levin R, Mogun H. et al Relationship between selective cyclooxygenase‐2 inhibitors and acute myocardial infarction in older adults. Circulation 2004. 1092068–2073.2073. [PubMed]

16. Kimmel S E, Berlin J A, Reilly M, Jaskowiak J, Kishel L, Chittams J. et al Patients exposed to rofecoxib and celecoxib have different odds of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 2005. 142157–164.164. [PubMed]

17. Kasliwal R, Layton D, Harris S, Wilton L, Shakir S A. A comparison of reported gastrointestinal and thromboembolic events between rofecoxib and celecoxib using observational data. Drug Saf 2005. 28803.

18. García Rodríguez L A, Varas C, Patrono C. Differential effects of aspirin and non‐aspirin nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in the primary prevention of myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women. Epidemiology 2000. 11382–387.387. [PubMed]

19. Rahme E, Pilote L, LeLorier J. Association between naproxen use and protection against acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2002. 1621111–1115.1115. [PubMed]

20. Schlienger R G, Jick H, Meier C R. Use of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and the risk of first‐time acute myocardial infarction. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002. 54327–332.332. [PubMed]

21. Solomon D H, Glynn R J, Levin R, Avorn J. Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug use and acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2002. 1621099–1104.1104. [PubMed]

22. Garcia Rodriguez L A, Varas‐Lorenzo C, Maguire A, Gonzalez‐Perez A. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction in the general population. Circulation 2004. 1093000–3006.3006. [PubMed]

23. Kimmel S E, Berlin J A, Reilly M, Jaskowiak J, Kishel L, Chittams J. et al The effects of nonselective non‐aspirin non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory medications on the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and their interaction with aspirin. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004. 43985–990.990. [PubMed]

24. Fischer L M, Schlienger R G, Matter C M, Jick H, Meier C R. Current use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Pharmacotherapy 2005. 25503–510.510. [PubMed]

25. Graham D J, Campen D, Hui R, Spence M, Cheetham C, Levy G. et al Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo‐oxygenase 2 selective and non‐selective non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs: nested case‐control study. Lancet 2005. 365475–481.481. [PubMed]

26. Hippisley‐Cox J, Coupland C. Risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors or traditional non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs: population based nested case‐control analysis. BMJ 2005. 3301366–1374.1374. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

27. Johnsen S P, Larsson H, Tarone R E, McLaughlin J K, Norgard B, Friis S. et al Risk of hospitalization for myocardial infarction among users of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and other NSAIDs: a population‐based case‐control study. Arch Intern Med 2005. 165978–984.984. [PubMed]

28. Kimmel S E, Berlin J A, Reilly M, Jaskowiak J, Kishel L, Chittams J. et al Patients exposed to rofecoxib and celecoxib have different odds of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 2005. 142157–164.164. [PubMed]

29. Levesque L E, Brophy J M, Zhang B. The risk for myocardial infarction with cyclooxygenase‐2 inhibitors: a population study of elderly adults. Ann Intern Med 2005. 142481–489.489. [PubMed]

30. Andersohn F, Suissa S, Garbe E. Use of first‐ and second‐generation cyclooxygenase‐2‐selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and risk of acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2006. 1131950–1957.1957. [PubMed]

31. Helin‐Salmivaara A, Virtanen A, Vesalainen R, Gronroos J M, Klaukka T, Idanpaan‐Heikkila J E. et al NSAID use and the risk of hospitalization for first myocardial infarction in the general population: a nationwide case‐control study from Finland. Eur Heart J 2006. 271657–1663.1663. [PubMed]

32. Ray W A, Stein C M, Hall K, Daugherty J R, Griffin M R. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease: an observational cohort study. Lancet 2002. 359118–123.123. [PubMed]

33. Ray W A, Stein C M, Daugherty J R, Hall K, Arbogast P G, Griffin M R. COX‐2 selective non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease. Lancet 2002. 3601071–1073.1073. [PubMed]

34. Mamdani M, Rochon P, Juurlink D N, Anderson G M, Kopp A, Naglie G. et al Effect of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and naproxen on short‐term risk of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2003. 163481–486.486. [PubMed]

35. Patel T N, Goldberg K C. Use of aspirin and ibuprofen compared with aspirin alone and the risk of myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2004. 164852–856.856. [PubMed]

36. Chan A T, Manson J E, Albert C M, Chae C U, Rexrode K M, Curhan G C. et al Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and the risk of cardiovascular events. Circulation 2006. 1131578–1587.1587. [PubMed]

37. Solomon D H, Avorn J, Sturmer T, Glynn R J, Mogun H, Schneeweiss S. Cardiovascular outcomes in new users of coxibs and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum 2006. 541378–1389.1389. [PubMed]

38. Baron J A, Cole B F, Sandler R S, Haile R W, Ahnen D, Bresalier R. et al A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med 2003. 348891–899.899. [PubMed]

39. Solomon S D, McMurray J J, Pfeffer M A, Wittes J, Fowler R, Finn P. et al Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. N Engl J Med 2005. 3521071–1080.1080. [PubMed]

40. Sandler R S, Halabi S, Baron J A, Budinger S, Paskett E, Keresztes R. et al A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2003. 348883–890.890. [PubMed]

41. Konstam M A, Weir M R, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Sperling R S, Barr E. et al Cardiovascular thrombotic events in controlled, clinical trials of rofecoxib. Circulation 2001. 1042280–2288.2288. [PubMed]

42. White W B, Faich G, Borer J S, Makuch R W. Cardiovascular thrombotic events in arthritis trials of the cyclooxygenase‐2 inhibitor celecoxib. Am J Cardiol 2003. 92411–418.418. [PubMed]

43. Moore R A, Derry1 S, Makinson G T, McQuay H J. Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta‐analysis of information from company clinical trial reports. Arthritis Res Ther 2005. 7644–665.665.

44. Matchaba P, Gitton X, Krammer G, Ehrsam E, Sloan E S, Olson M. et al Cardiovascular safety of lumiracoxib: a meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials [gt-or-equal, slanted]

1 week and up to 1 year in duration of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Ther 2005. 271196–1214.1214. [PubMed]

45. Kearney P M, Baigent C, Godwin J, Halls H, Emberson J R, Patrono C. Do selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors and traditional non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta‐analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2006. 3321302–1308.1308. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

46. Caldwell B, Aldington S, Weatherall M, Shirtcliffe P, Beasley R. Risk of cardiovascular events and celecoxib: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J R Soc Med 2006. 99132–140.140. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

47. Garner S E, Fidan D D, Frankish R R, Judd M G, Towheed T E, Wells G. et al Rofecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis. In: Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2005.

48. Garner S E, Fidan D D, Frankish R, Maxwell L. Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis. In: Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2005.

49. Deeks J J, Smith L A, Bradley M D. Efficacy, tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2002. 325619–621.621. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

50. Garner S E, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Shea B J, Towheed T E. et al Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis. In: Cochrane Library. Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.

51. Battisti W P, Katz N P, Weaver A L, Matsumoto A K, Kivitz A J, Polis A B. et al Pain management in osteoarthritis: a focus on onset of efficacy—a comparison of rofecoxib, celecoxib, acetaminophen, and nabumetone across four clinical trials. J Pain 2004. 5511–520.520. [PubMed]

52. Bensen W, Weaver A, Espinoza L, Zhao W W, Riley W, Paperiello B. et al Efficacy and safety of valdecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled comparison with placebo and naproxen. Rheumatology 2002. 411008–1016.1016. [PubMed]

53. Chan F K, Hung L C, Suen B Y, Wong V W, Hui A J, Wu J C. et al Celecoxib versus diclofenac plus omeprazole in high‐risk arthritis patients: results of a randomized double‐blind trial. Gastroenterology 2004. 1271038–1043.1043. [PubMed]

54. Day R, Morrison B, Luza A, Castaneda O, Strusberg A, Nahir M. et al A randomized trial of the efficacy and tolerability of the COX‐2 inhibitor rofecoxib vs ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis. Arch Intern Med 2000. 1601781–1787.1787. [PubMed]

55. Detrembleur C, De Nayer J, van den Hecke A. Celecoxib improves the efficiency of the locomotor mechanism in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A randomised, placebo, double‐blind and cross‐over trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005. 13206–210.210. [PubMed]

56. Ehrich E W, Bolognese J A, Watson D J, Kong S X. Effect of rofecoxib therapy on measures of health‐related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis. Am J Manag Care 2001. 7609–616.616. [PubMed]

57. Emery P, Zeidler H, Kvien T K, Guslandi M, Naudin R, Stead H. et al Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long‐term management of rheumatoid arthritis: randomised double‐blind comparison. Lancet 1999. 3542106–2111.2111. [PubMed]

58. Geba G P, Polis A B, Najarian D K, Dixon M E, Storms W W, Weaver A L. Onset of efficacy and patient assessment of clinical response in osteoarthritis: comparison of rofecoxib to nabumetone. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001. 49S126.

59. Geusens P P, Truitt K, Sfikakis P, Zhao P L, DeTora L, Shingo S. et al A placebo and active comparator‐controlled trial of rofecoxib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2002. 31230–238.238. [PubMed]

60. Gibofsky A, Williams G W, McKenna F, Fort J G. Comparing the efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2–specific inhibitors in treating osteoarthritis: appropriate trial design considerations and results of a randomized, placebo‐controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2003. 483102–3111.3111. [PubMed]

61. Goldstein J L, Correa P, Zhao W W, Burr A M, Hubbard R C, Verburg K M. et al Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers with celecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase‐2 inhibitor, compared to naproxen in patients with arthritis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001. 961019–1027.1027. [PubMed]

62. Gottesdiener K, Schnitzer T, Fisher C, Bockow B, Markenson J, Ko A. et al Results of a randomized, dose‐ranging trial of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 2002. 411052–1061.1061. [PubMed]

63. Grifka J K, Zacher J, Brown J P, Seriolo B, Lee A, Moore A. et al Efficacy and tolerability on lumiracoxib versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the hand. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004. 22589–596.596. [PubMed]

64. Hawkey C, Laine L, Simon T, Beaulieu A, Maldonado‐Cocco J, Acevedo E. et al Comparison of the effect of rofecoxib (a cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor), ibuprofen, and placebo on the gastroduodenal mucosa of patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2000. 43370–377.377. [PubMed]

65. Hawkey C C, Svoboda P, Fiedorowicz‐Fabrycy I F, Nasonov E L, Pikhlak E G, Cousin M. et al Gastroduodenal safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib compared with ibuprofen and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2004. 311804–1810.1810. [PubMed]

66. Hawkey C J, Farkouh M, Gitton X, Ehrsam E, Huels J, Richardson P. Therapeutic arthritis research and gastrointestinal event trial of lumiracoxib ‐ study design and patient demographics. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004. 2051–63.63. [PubMed]

67. Hunt R H, Harper S, Watson D J, Yu C, Quan H, Lee M. et al The gastrointestinal safety of the COX‐2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib assessed by both endoscopy and analysis of upper gastrointestinal events. Am J Gastroenterol 2003. 981725–1733.1733. [PubMed]

68. Katz N, Rodgers D B, Krupa D, Reicin A. Onset of pain relief with rofecoxib in chronic low back pain: results of two four‐week, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2004. 20651–658.658. [PubMed]

69. Kivitz A, Eisen G, Zhao W W, Bevirt T, Recker D P. Randomized placebo‐controlled trial comparing efficacy and safety of valdecoxib with naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. J Fam Pract 2002. 51530–537.537. [PubMed]

70. Kivitz A J, Greenwald M W, Cohen S B, Polis A B, Najarian D K, Dixon M E. et al Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12·5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004. 52666–674.674. [PubMed]

71. Lehmann R, Brzosko M, Kopsa P, Nischik R, Kreisse A, Thurston H. et al Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily in knee osteoarthritis: a 13‐week, randomized, double‐blind study vs. placebo and celecoxib. Curr Med Res Opin 2005. 21517–526.526. [PubMed]

72. Leung A T, Malmstrom K, Gallacher A E, Sarembock B, Poor G, Beaulieu A. et al Efficacy and tolerability profile of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo and active‐comparator controlled 12‐week efficacy trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2002. 1849–58.58. [PubMed]

73. Makarowski W, Zhao W W, Bevirt T, Recker D P. Efficacy and safety of the COX‐2 specific inhibitor valdecoxib in the management of osteoarthritis of the hip: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled comparison with naproxen. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002. 10290–296.296. [PubMed]

74. McKenna F, Borenstein D, Wendt H, Wallemark C, Lefkowith J B, Geis G S. Celecoxib versus diclofenac in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: a placebo‐controlled, randomised, double‐blind comparison. Scand J Rheumatol 2001. 3011–18.18. [PubMed]

75. Pavelka K, Recker D P, Verburg K M. Valdecoxib is as effective as diclofenac in the management of rheumatoid arthritis with a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers: results of a 26‐week trial. Rheumatology 2003. 421207–1215.1215. [PubMed]

76. Pincus T, Koch G, Lei H, Mangal B, Sokka T, Moskowitz R. et al Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen (paracetamol) or Celecoxib Efficacy Studies (PACES): two randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover clinical trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2004. 63931–939.939. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

77. Rabeneck L, Goldstein J L, Vu A, Mayne T J, Rublee D A. Valdecoxib is associated with improved dyspepsia‐related health compared with nonspecific NSAIDs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Gastroenterol 2005. 1001043–1050.1050. [PubMed]

78. Rubin B R, Burton R, Navarra S, Antigua J, Londono J, Pryhuber K G. et al Efficacy and safety profile of treatment with etoricoxib 120 mg once daily compared with indomethacin 50 mg three times daily in acute gout: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004. 50598–606.606. [PubMed]

79. Schnitzer T J, Beier J, Geusens P, Hasler P, Patel S K, Senftleber I. et al Efficacy and safety of four doses of lumiracoxib versus diclofenac in patients with knee or hip primary osteoarthritis: a phase II, four‐week, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Arthritis Care and Research 2004. 51549–557.557. [PubMed]

80. Schnitzer T J, Truitt K, Fleischmann R, Dalgin P, Block J, Zeng Q. et al The safety profile, tolerability, and effective dose range of rofecoxib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Ther 1999. 211688–1702.1702. [PubMed]

81. Schumacher H R, Boice J A, Daikh D I, Mukhopadhyay S, Malmstrom K, Ng J. et al Randomized double blind trial of etoricoxib and indomethacin in treatment of acute gouty arthritis. BMJ 2002. 3241488–1492.1492. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

82. Sheldon E, Beaulieu A, Paster Z, Dutta D, Yu S, Sloan V S. Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a 13‐week, randomized, double‐blind comparison with celecoxib and placebo. Clin Ther 2005. 2764–77.77. [PubMed]

83. Simon L S, Weaver A L, Graham D Y, Kivitz A J, Lipsky P E, Hubbard R C. et al Anti‐inflammatory and upper gastrointestinal effects of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999. 2821921–1928.1928. [PubMed]

84. Tannenbaum H, Berenbaum F, Reginster J Y, Zacher J, Robinson J, Poor G. et al Lumiracoxib is effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a 13 week, randomised, double blind study versus placebo and celecoxib. Ann Rheum Dis 2004. 631419–1426.1426. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

85. van der Heijde D, Baraf H S, Ramos‐Remus C, Calin A, Weaver A L, Schiff M. et al Evaluation of the efficacy of etoricoxib in ankylosing spondylitis: results of a fifty‐two‐week, randomized, controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2005. 521205–1215.1215. [PubMed]

86. von Scheele B, Pen B, Wong J, Niculescu L. Economic evaluation of oral valdecoxib versus diclofenac in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a randomized clinical trial. Rheumatology 2003. 42(Suppl 3)iii53–iii59.iii59. [PubMed]

87. Cannon G W, Caldwell J R, Holt P, McLean B, Seidenberg B, Bolognese J. et al Rofecoxib, a specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2, with clinical efficacy comparable with that of diclofenac sodium: results of a one‐year, randomized, clinical trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and hip. Arthritis Rheum 2000. 43978–987.987. [PubMed]

88. Collantes E, Curtis S P, Lee K W, Casas N, McCarthy T, Melian A. et al A multinational randomized, controlled clinical trial of etoricoxib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Fam Pract 2002. 310–19.19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

89. Dougados M, Béhier J M, Jolchine I, Calin A, van der Heijde D, Olivieri I. et al Efficacy of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2–specific inhibitor, in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. A six‐week controlled study with comparison against placebo and against a traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug. Arthritis Rheum 2001. 44180–185.185. [PubMed]

90. Farkouh M E, Kirshner H, Harrington R A, Ruland S, Verheugt F W, Schnitzer T J. et al Comparison of lumiracoxib with naproxen and ibuprofen in the Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET), cardiovascular outcomes: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004. 364675–684.684. [PubMed]

91. Geusens P P, Truitt K, Sfikakis P, Zhao P L, DeTora L, Shingo S. et al A placebo and active comparator‐controlled trial of rofecoxib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2002. 31230–238.238. [PubMed]

92. Kivitz A J, Greenwald M W, Cohen S B, Polis A B, Najarian D K, Dixon M E. et al Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004. 52666–674.674. [PubMed]

93. Lisse J R, Perlman M, Johansson G, Shoemaker J R, Schechtman J, Skalky C S. et al Gastrointestinal tolerability and effectiveness of rofecoxib versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2003. 139539–546.546. [PubMed]

94. Matsumoto A K, Melian A, Mandel D R, McIlwain H H, Borenstein D, Zhao P L. et al Etoricoxib Rheumatoid Arthritis Study Group. A randomized, controlled, clinical trial of etoricoxib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2002. 291623–1630.1630. [PubMed]

95. McKenna F, Borenstein D, Wendt H, Wallemark C, Lefkowith J B, Geis G S. Celecoxib versus diclofenac in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Scand J Rheumatol 2001. 3011–18.18. [PubMed]

96. Saag K, van der Heijde D, Fisher C, Samara A, DeTora L, Bolognese J. et al Rofecoxib, a new cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, shows sustained efficacy, comparable with other nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs: a 6‐week and a 1‐year trial in patients with osteoarthritis. Archives of Family Medicine 2000. 91124–1134.1134. [PubMed]

97. Wiesenhutter C W, Boice J A, Ko A, Sheldon E A, Murphy F T, Wittmer B A. et al Evaluation of the comparative efficacy of etoricoxib and ibuprofen for treatment of patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc 2005. 80470–479.479. [PubMed]

98. Zacher J, Feldman D, Gerli R, Scott D, Hou S M, Uebelhart D. et al A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis. Curr Med Res Opin 2003. 19725–736.736. [PubMed]

99. Curfman G D, Morrissey S, Drazen J M. Expression of concern: Bombardier, et al. “Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis”. N Engl J Med 2000. 3431520–1528.1528. [PubMed]

100. Maradit‐Kremers H, Crowson C S, Nicola P J, Ballman K V, Roger V L, Jacobsen S J. et al Increased unrecognized coronary heart disease and sudden deaths in rheumatoid arthritis: a population‐based cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2005. 52402–411.411. [PubMed]

101. Scott D L, Berry H, Capell H, Coppock J, Daymond T, Doyle D V. et al The long‐term effects of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized placebo‐controlled trial. Rheumatology 2000. 391095–1101.1101. [PubMed]

102. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta‐analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998. 316140–144.144. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

103. Lipworth L, Friis S, Mellemkjærc L, Signorelloa L B, Johnsen S P, Nielsen G L. et al A population‐based cohort study of mortality among adults prescribed paracetamol in Denmark. J Clin Epidemiol 2003. 56796–801.801. [PubMed]

104. McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular risk and inhibition of cyclooxygenase: a systematic review of the observational studies of selective and nonselective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2. JAMA 2006. 2961633–1644.1644. [PubMed]

105. Cannon C P, Curtis S P, FitzGerald G A, Krum H, Kaur A, Bolognese J A. et al Cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long‐term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison. Lancet 2006. 3681771–1781.1781. [PubMed]

106. Fries J F, Murtagh K N, Bennett M, Zatarain E, Lingala B, Bruce B. The rise and decline of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug‐associated gastropathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004. 502433–2440.2440. [PubMed]

107. Waxman H A. The lessons of Vioxx—drug safety and sales. N Engl J Med 2005. 3522576–2578.2578. [PubMed]

108. Olsen N J. Tailoring arthritis therapy in the wake of the NSAID crisis. N Engl J Med 2005. 3522578–2580.2580. [PubMed]

109. Topol E J, Falk G W. A coxib a day won't keep the doctor away. Lancet 2004. 364639–640.640. [PubMed]

110. Graham D J. COX‐2 inhibitors, other NSAIDs, and cardiovascular risk: the seduction of common sense. JAMA 2006. 2961653–1656.1656. [PubMed]

111. Ashworth N L, Peloso P M, Muhajarine N, Stang M. A population based historical cohort study of the mortality associated with nabumetone, Arthrotec, diclofenac, and naproxen. J Rheumatol 2004. 31951–956.956. [PubMed]

112. Mahonen M S, McElduff P, Dobson A J, Kuulasmaa K A, Evans A E. Current smoking and the risk of non‐fatal myocardial infarction in the WHO MONICA Project populations. Tob Control 2004. 13244–250.250. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

113. European Medicines Agency http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/opiniongen/44213006en.pdf .

114. Spiegel B M, Targownik L, Dulai G S, Gralnek I M. The cost‐effectiveness of cyclooxygenase‐2 selective inhibitors in the management of chronic arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2003. 138795–806.806. [PubMed]

115. Choi H K, Seeger J D, Kuntz K M. Effects of rofecoxib and naproxen on life expectancy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a decision analysis. Am J Med 2004. 116621–629.629. [PubMed]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of
BMJ Group