PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1303637)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  A nationwide study of aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Hodgkin lymphoma risk in Denmark 
British Journal of Cancer  2011;105(11):1776-1782.
Background:
We recently found an inverse association between low-dose aspirin use and risk of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in northern Denmark. To strengthen the evidence for this association, we expanded the study base to include all of Denmark.
Methods:
Between 1997 and 2009, 1659 incident HL cases were identified in nationwide databases and matched with ⩽5 population controls on age, sex, and residence. Use of aspirin, selective cyclooxygenase-2 (sCOX-2) inhibitors, and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) from 1995 through 2008 (⩾1 year before the index date) was ascertained via the Danish National Prescription Database. Odds ratios (ORs) for associations with HL risk were estimated using conditional logistic regression.
Results:
Ever use (>2 prescriptions) vs never/rare use (⩽2 prescriptions) of low-dose aspirin was not associated with HL risk, but the association with long-term use for ⩾7 years vs never/rare use was clearly inverse, although statistically nonsignificantly so (OR=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39–1.09). By contrast, ever use of sCOX-2 inhibitors or other NSAIDs (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.10–1.47), especially short-term and low- or medium-intensity use, was associated with elevated HL risk.
Conclusion:
Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that long-term use of low-dose aspirin, but not other NSAIDs, protects against HL development.
doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.443
PMCID: PMC3242601  PMID: 22027707
aspirin; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Hodgkin lymphoma; epidemiology; risk; prevention
2.  Prescriptions for selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and risk of breast cancer in a population-based case-control study 
Introduction
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prevent the growth of mammary tumours in animal models. Two population-based case-control studies suggest a reduced risk of breast cancer associated with selective cyclooxygenase-2 (sCox-2) inhibitor use, but data regarding the association between breast cancer occurrence and use of non-selective NSAIDs are conflicting.
Methods
We conducted a population-based case-control study using Danish healthcare databases to examine if use of NSAIDs, including sCox-2 inhibitors, was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. We included 8,195 incident breast cancer cases diagnosed in 1991 through 2006 and 81,950 population controls.
Results
Overall, we found no reduced breast cancer risk in ever users (>2 prescriptions) of sCox-2 inhibitors (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.99, 1.18), aspirin (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.90-1.07), or non-selective NSAIDs OR = 1.04, (95% CI = 0.98, 1.10)). Recent use (>2 prescriptions within two years of index date) of sCox-2 inhibitors, aspirin, or non-selective NSAIDs was likewise not associated with breast cancer risk (Ors = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96, 1.18), 0.96 (95% CI = 0.87, 1.06) and 0.99 (95% CI = 0.85, 1.16), respectively). Risk estimates by duration (<10, 10 to 15, 15+ years) or intensity (low/medium/high) of NSAID use were also close to unity. Regardless of intensity, shorter or long-term NSAID use was not significantly associated with breast cancer risk.
Conclusions
Overall, we found no compelling evidence of a reduced risk of breast cancer associated with use of sCox-2 inhibitors, aspirin, or non-selective NSAIDs.
doi:10.1186/bcr2482
PMCID: PMC2879557  PMID: 20193065
3.  Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs That Elevate Cardiovascular Risk: An Examination of Sales and Essential Medicines Lists in Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries 
PLoS Medicine  2013;10(2):e1001388.
Patricia McGettigan and David Henry find that, although some non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as diclofenac are known to increase cardiovascular risk, diclofenac is included on 74 countries' essential medicine lists and was the most commonly used NSAID in the 15 countries they evaluated.
Background
Certain non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (e.g., rofecoxib [Vioxx]) increase the risk of heart attack and stroke and should be avoided in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. Rates of cardiovascular disease are high and rising in many low- and middle-income countries. We studied the extent to which evidence on cardiovascular risk with NSAIDs has translated into guidance and sales in 15 countries.
Methods and Findings
Data on the relative risk (RR) of cardiovascular events with individual NSAIDs were derived from meta-analyses of randomised trials and controlled observational studies. Listing of individual NSAIDs on Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) was obtained from the World Health Organization. NSAID sales or prescription data for 15 low-, middle-, and high-income countries were obtained from Intercontinental Medical Statistics Health (IMS Health) or national prescription pricing audit (in the case of England and Canada). Three drugs (rofecoxib, diclofenac, etoricoxib) ranked consistently highest in terms of cardiovascular risk compared with nonuse. Naproxen was associated with a low risk. Diclofenac was listed on 74 national EMLs, naproxen on just 27. Rofecoxib use was not documented in any country. Diclofenac and etoricoxib accounted for one-third of total NSAID usage across the 15 countries (median 33.2%, range 14.7–58.7%). This proportion did not vary between low- and high-income countries. Diclofenac was by far the most commonly used NSAID, with a market share close to that of the next three most popular drugs combined. Naproxen had an average market share of less than 10%.
Conclusions
Listing of NSAIDs on national EMLs should take account of cardiovascular risk, with preference given to low risk drugs. Diclofenac has a risk very similar to rofecoxib, which was withdrawn from worldwide markets owing to cardiovascular toxicity. Diclofenac should be removed from EMLs.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used drugs. Aspirin, the first NSAID, was developed in 1897 but there are now many different NSAIDs. Some can be bought over-the-counter but others are available only with prescription. NSAIDs can help relieve short- and long-term pain, reduce inflammation (redness and swelling), and reduce high fevers. Common conditions that are treated with NSAIDs include headaches, toothache, back ache, and arthritis. NSAIDs work by stopping a class of enzymes called cyclo-oxygenases (COXs) from making prostaglandins, some of which cause pain and inflammation. Like all drugs, NSAIDs have some unwanted side effects. Because certain prostaglandins protect the stomach lining from the stomach acid that helps to digest food, NSAID use can cause indigestion and stomach ulcers (gastrointestinal complications). In addition, NSAIDs increase the risk of heart attacks and stroke to varying degrees and therefore should be avoided by people at high risk of cardiovascular diseases—conditions that affect the heart and/or blood vessels.
Why Was This Study Done?
Different NSAIDs are associated with different levels of cardiovascular risk. Selective COX-2 inhibitors (e.g., rofecoxib, celecoxib, etoricoxib) generally have fewer stomach-related side effects than non-selective COX inhibitors (e.g., naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac). However, some NSAIDs (rofecoxib, diclofenac, etoricoxib) are more likely to cause cardiovascular events than others (e.g., naproxen). When doctors prescribe NSAIDs, they need to consider the patient's risk profile. Particularly for patients with higher risk of cardiovascular events, a doctor should either advise against NSAID use or recommend one that has a relatively low cardiovascular risk. Information on the cardiovascular risk associated with different NSAIDs has been available for several years, but have doctors changed their prescribing of NSAIDs based on the information? This question is of particular concern in low- and middle-income countries where cardiovascular disease is increasingly common. In this study, the researchers investigate the extent to which evidence on the cardiovascular risk associated with different NSAIDs has translated into guidance and sales in 15 low-, middle-, and high-income countries.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers derived data on the relative risk of cardiovascular events associated with individual NSAIDs compared to non-use of NSAIDs from published meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. They obtained information on the NSAIDs recommended in 100 countries from national Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs; essential medicines are drugs that satisfy the priority health care needs of a population). Finally, they obtained information on NSAID sales for 13 countries in the South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Asian Pacific regions and NSAID prescription data for Canada and England. Rofecoxib, diclofenac, and etoricoxib consistently increased cardiovascular risk compared with no NSAIDs. All three had a higher relative risk of cardiovascular events than naproxen in pairwise analyses. Naproxen was associated with the lowest cardiovascular risk. No national EMLs recommended rofecoxib, which was withdrawn from world markets 8 years ago because of its cardiovascular risk. Seventy-four national EMLs listed diclofenac, but only 27 EMLs listed naproxen. Diclofenac was the most commonly used NSAID, with an average market share across the 15 countries of nearly 30%. By contrast, naproxen had an average market share of less than 10%. Finally, across both high- and low-/middle-income countries, diclofenac and etoricoxib accounted for one-third of total NSAID usage.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that NSAIDs with higher risk of cardiovascular events are widely used in low-/middle- as well as high-income countries. Diclofenac is the most popular NSAID, despite its higher relative risk of cardiovascular events, which is similar to that of rofecoxib. Diclofenac is also widely listed on EMLs even though information on its higher cardiovascular risk has been available since 2006. In contrast, naproxen, one of the safest in relative terms of the NSAIDs examined, was among the least popular and was listed on a minority of EMLs. Some aspects of the study's design may affect the accuracy of these findings. For example, the researchers did not look at the risk profiles of the patients actually taking NSAIDs. However, given the volume of use of high-risk NSAIDS, it is likely that these drugs are taken by many individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events. Overall, these findings have important implications for public health and, given the wide availability of safer alternatives, the researchers suggest that diclofenac should be removed from national EMLs and that its marketing authorizations should be revoked globally.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001388.
This study is further discussed in a PLOS Medicine Perspective by K. Srinath Reddy and Ambuj Roy
The UK National Health Service Choices website provides detailed information on NSAIDS
MedlinePlus provides information about aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, and diclofenac; it also provides links to other information about pain relievers (in English and Spanish)
The American Heart Association has information on cardiovascular disease; Can Patients With Cardiovascular Disease Take Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs? is a Cardiology Patient Page in the AHA journal Circulation
The British Heart Foundation also provides information about cardiovascular disease and has a factsheet on NSAIDs and cardiovascular disease
The World Health Organization has a fact sheet on essential medicines; the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (in English and French), and national EMLs are available
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001388
PMCID: PMC3570554  PMID: 23424288
4.  Traditional Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy: A Drug–Drug Interaction? 
PLoS Medicine  2007;4(5):e157.
Background
Suppression of prostacyclin (PGI2) is implicated in the cardiovascular hazard from inhibitors of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2. Furthermore, estrogen confers atheroprotection via COX-2–dependent PGI2 in mice, raising the possibility that COX inhibitors may undermine the cardioprotection, suggested by observational studies, of endogenous or exogenous estrogens.
Methods and Findings
To identify an interaction between hormone therapy (HT) and COX inhibition, we measured a priori the association between concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), excluding aspirin, in peri- and postmenopausal women on HT and the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) in a population-based epidemiological study. The odds ratio (OR) of MI in 1,673 individuals and 7,005 controls was increased from 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50–0.88) when taking HT in the absence of traditional (t)NSAIDs to 1.50 (95% CI 0.85–2.64) when taking the combination of HT and tNSAIDs, resulting in a significant (p < 0.002) interaction. The OR when taking aspirin at doses of 150 mg/d or more was 1.41 (95% CI 0.47–4.22). However, a similar interaction was not observed with other commonly used drugs, including lower doses of aspirin, which target preferentially COX-1.
Conclusions
Whether estrogens confer cardioprotection remains controversial. Such a benefit was observed only in perimenopausal women in the only large randomized trial designed to address this issue. Should such a benefit exist, these results raise the possibility that COX inhibitors may undermine the cardioprotective effects of HT.
It is controversial whether estrogens confer cardioprotection. This study suggests that even should such a benefit exist, COX inhibitors may undermine cardioprotective effects of hormone therapy.
Editors' Summary
Background.
There is currently a great deal of uncertainty regarding the effect of postmenopausal hormone therapy on heart disease in women. Premenopausal women are much less likely to experience heart attacks and strokes than men, a difference that does not exist between postmenopausal women and men. One mechanism that might explain these observations relates to the effect of estrogen, which is thought to have a protective effect on the heart. Hormone replacement therapy (HT) consisting of replacement estrogen, and sometimes progesterone as well, is often taken by women experiencing symptoms of menopause. Evidence from observational studies and the Womens' Health Initiative (WHI) trial has suggested that HT protects against heart disease in perimenopausal women. However, researchers have suggested that any beneficial effect of hormone replacement therapy on the heart might be counteracted by the effects of certain types of painkillers also being taken by women involved in the studies. These painkillers, nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs), prevent production of a molecule called prostacyclin. Prostacyclin plays a role in preventing blood clotting and is therefore thought to be important in protecting the heart. Estrogen, however, acts to increase production of prostacyclin, and it is therefore theoretically possible that hormone replacement therapy does have a beneficial effect on heart health, but which is counteracted by the negative effects of NSAIDs.
Why Was This Study Done?
In this study, the researchers wanted to find out whether there was any evidence for an interaction between NSAID use, hormone replacement therapy, and heart disease. Such understanding in turn might help to identify more clearly whether hormone replacement therapy protects against heart disease in specific subgroups of postmenopausal women.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
This study was carried out using information from the UK's General Practice Research Database, which is the largest computer database of anonymous medical records from primary care anywhere in the world. It contains information entered by UK general practitioners on their patients' drug prescriptions, diagnoses, referrals to hospital, and other data. The researchers here searched for all individuals from the database who were aged between 50 and 84 years on 1 January 1997, and then followed them up through the database for four years, or until the individual died, reached 85 years of age, or was diagnosed with a heart attack or cancer. From this search, the researchers found 1,673 women who had heart attacks or who died from coronary heart disease; these were considered “cases.” Then, these 1,673 women were matched against 20,000 “control” women of similar age. Information was pulled out for each case or control on their use of hormone replacement therapy, NSAIDs (covering 21 different drugs, but most commonly diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen), and various risk factors for heart disease. The researchers then compared use of hormone replacement therapy and NSAIDs between the cases and controls, while making statistical adjustments for other risk factors (such as diabetes and smoking, for example).
  The researchers found that current use of hormone replacement therapy was associated with a lower risk of heart attack than non-use. The odds ratio (chance of a heart attack among HT users compared to the chance among non-users of HT) was 0.78. However, when looking at women who used NSAIDs at the same time as hormone replacement therapy, the researchers found no suggestion of a reduction in risk of heart attack: the odds ratio for the chance of heart attack among this group of women, as compared to nonusers of both NSAIDs and hormone replacement therapy, was 1.50.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings suggest that hormone replacement therapy and NSAIDs might interact, with NSAIDs acting against a role for hormone replacement therapy in preventing heart attacks. At face value, these results are in conflict with the findings of one large trial, the WHI trial, which failed to find a benefit of HT in preventing heart attacks. However, a recent analysis of WHI suggests cardioprotective effects of HT in women close to the time of the menopause and this coincides with the younger age of women in the observational studies such as the present one rather than in the WHI overall. Observational research studies, such as the present one, are often difficult to interpret because the groups being compared are not necessarily equivalent. It's possible that women who take hormone replacement therapy, or NSAIDs, are in some way different from women who do not, which will bias the findings. Determination of the clinical implications of these findings would most appropriately be resolved in future trials, designed to address the question of interest.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040157.
Resources from the US National Institutes of Health on menopausal hormone therapy, including links to information about the Women's Health Initiative trials, information about managing menopausal symptoms, and more
Resources from the US National Institutes of Health (MedlinePlus) about heart disease in women
Information from NHS Direct, the UK National Health Service, about hormone replacement therapy
The UK General Practice Research Database is the database utilized in this article
Wikipedia entry on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (note: Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia anyone can edit)
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040157
PMCID: PMC1872041  PMID: 17518513
5.  Poor awareness of preventing aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury with combined protective medications 
AIM: To investigate prescribing pattern in low-dose aspirin users and physician awareness of preventing aspirin-induced gastrointestinal (GI) injury with combined protective medications.
METHODS: A retrospective drug utilization study was conducted in the 2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University. The hospital has 2300 beds and 2.5 million outpatient visits annually. Data mining was performed on all aspirin prescriptions for outpatients and emergency patients admitted in 2011. Concomitant use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine 2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) and mucoprotective drugs (MPs) were analyzed. A defined daily dose (DDD) methodology was applied to each MP. A further investigation was performed in aspirin users on combination use of GI injurious medicines [non-steoid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids and clopidogrel and warfarin] or intestinal protective drugs (misoprostol, rebamipide, teprenone and gefarnate). Data of major bleeding episodes were derived from medical records and adverse drug reaction monitoring records. The annual incidence of major GI bleeding due to low-dose aspirin was estimated for outpatients.
RESULTS: Prescriptions for aspirin users receiving PPIs, H2RA and MPs (n = 1039) accounted for only 3.46% of total aspirin prescriptions (n = 30 015). The ratios of coadministration of aspirin/PPI, aspirin/H2RA, aspirin/MP and aspirin/PPI/MP to the total aspirin prescriptions were 2.82%, 0.12%, 0.40% and 0.12%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in age between patients not receiving any GI protective medications and patients receiving PPIs, H2RA or MPs. The combined medication of aspirin and PPI was used more frequently than that of aspirin and MPs (2.82% vs 0.40%, P < 0.05) and aspirin/H2RA (2.82% vs 0.12%, P < 0.05). The values of DDDs of MPs in descending order were as follows: gefarnate, hydrotalcite > teprenone > sucralfate oral suspension > L-glutamine and sodium gualenate granules > rebamipide > sucralfate chewable tablets. The ratio of MP plus aspirin prescriptions to the total MP prescriptions was as follows: rebamipide (0.47%), teprenone (0.91%), L-glutamine and sodium gualenate granules (0.92%), gefarnate (0.31%), hydrotalcite (1.00%) and sucralfate oral suspension (0.13%). Percentages of prescriptions containing aspirin and intestinal protective drugs among the total aspirin prescriptions were: rebamipide (0.010%), PPI/rebamipide (0.027%), teprenone (0.11%), PPI/teprenone (0.037%), gefarnate (0.017%), and PPI/gefarnate (0.013%). No prescriptions were found containing coadministration of aspirin and other NSAIDs. Among the 3196 prescriptions containing aspirin/clopidogrel, 3088 (96.6%) prescriptions did not contain any GI protective medicines. Of the 389 prescriptions containing aspirin/corticosteroids, 236 (60.7%) contained no GI protective medicines. None of the prescriptions using aspirin/warfarin (n = 22) contained GI protective medicines. Thirty-five patients were admitted to this hospital in 2011 because of acute hemorrhage of upper digestive tract induced by low-dose aspirin. The annual incidence rates of major GI bleeding were estimated at 0.25% for outpatients taking aspirin and 0.5% for outpatients taking aspirin/warfarin, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The prescribing pattern of low-dose aspirin revealed a poor awareness of preventing GI injury with combined protective medications. Actions should be taken to address this issue.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3167
PMCID: PMC3386331  PMID: 22791953
Low-dose aspirin; Gastrointestinal injury; Small bowel injury; Drug utilization; Prescribing patterns; Combined medications; Proton-pump inhibitors; Histamine 2-receptor antagonists; Mucoprotective drugs; Defined daily dose
6.  Use of low-dose aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of glioma: a case–control study 
British Journal of Cancer  2013;108(5):1189-1194.
Background:
Few studies have examined the association between use of aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and risk of glioma and the results have been equivocal. We therefore investigated the influence of NSAID use on glioma risk in a nationwide setting.
Methods:
We used national registries in Denmark to identify all patients aged 20–85 years with a first diagnosis of histologically verified glioma during 2000–2009. Each case was matched on birth year and sex to eight population controls using risk-set sampling. We used prescription data to assess NSAID use and classified exposure to low-dose aspirin or non-aspirin (NA) NSAIDs into ever use or long-term use, defined as continuous use for ⩾5 years. Conditional logistic regression was used to compute odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for glioma associated with NSAID use, adjusted for potential confounders.
Results:
A total of 2688 glioma cases and 18 848 population controls were included in the study. Ever use of low-dose aspirin (OR=0.90; 95% CI: 0.77–1.04) or NA-NSAIDs (OR=1.05; 95% CI: 0.96–1.14) was not associated with glioma risk. Compared with never use, long-term use of low-dose aspirin or of NA-NSAIDs was associated with ORs of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.53–1.21) and 1.11 (0.57–2.17), respectively. We observed no clear patterns of risk in stratified analysis according to estimated doses of low-dose aspirin (⩽100 mg, 150 mg).
Conclusion:
We did not find any apparent association between aspirin or NA-NSAID use and risk of glioma, although our results may be consistent with a slight reduction in glioma risk with long-term use of low-dose aspirin.
doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.87
PMCID: PMC3619088  PMID: 23449355
aspirin; non-aspirin NSAIDs; glioma; risk; epidemiology
7.  Potential of prescription registries to capture individual-level use of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Denmark: trends in utilization 1999–2012 
Clinical Epidemiology  2014;6:155-168.
Background
Due to over-the-counter availability, no consensus exists on whether adequate information on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use can be obtained from prescription registries.
Objectives
To examine utilization of aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs in Denmark between 1999 and 2012 and to quantify the proportion of total sales that was sold on prescription.
Method
Based on nationwide data from the Danish Serum Institute and the Danish National Prescription Registry, we retrieved sales statistics for the Danish primary health care sector to calculate 1-year prevalences of prescription users of aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs, and to estimate the corresponding proportions of total sales dispensed on prescription.
Results
Both low-dose aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs were commonly used in the Danish population between 1999 and 2012, particularly among elderly individuals. The 1-year prevalence of prescribed low-dose aspirin increased throughout the study period, notably among men. Nonaspirin NSAID use was frequent in all age groups above 15 years and showed a female preponderance. Overall, the prevalence of prescribed nonaspirin NSAIDs decreased moderately after 2004, but substantial variation according to NSAID subtype was observed; ibuprofen use increased, use of all newer selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors nearly ceased after 2004, diclofenac use decreased by nearly 50% after 2008, and naproxen use remained stable. As of 2012, the prescribed proportion of individual-level NSAID sales was 92% for low-dose aspirin, 66% for ibuprofen, and 100% for all other NSAIDs.
Conclusion
The potential for identifying NSAID use from prescription registries in Denmark is high. Low-dose aspirin and nonaspirin NSAID use varied substantially between 1999 and 2012. Notably, use of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors nearly ceased, use of diclofenac decreased markedly, and naproxen use remained unaltered.
doi:10.2147/CLEP.S59156
PMCID: PMC4026552  PMID: 24872722
drug utilization; NSAID; registries; over-the-counter
8.  Cause for concern in the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications in the community -a population-based study 
BMC Family Practice  2011;12:70.
Background
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) medications are a common cause of reported adverse drug side-effects. This study describes the prevalence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) use (other than low-dose aspirin) and the presence of co-existing relative contraindications to NSAID use and chronic conditions in a representative population sample.
Methods
Data were analysed from 3,206 adults attending first follow-up of the North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS) in 2004 - 2006, a longitudinal representative population study. Medications were brought into study clinic visits by participants. Clinical assessment included measured blood pressure, kidney function, serum cholesterol, blood glucose. Questionnaires assessed demographics, lifestyle risk factors, physician-diagnosed chronic conditions. Data were weighted to census measures by region, age group, gender, and probability of selection in the household, to provide population representative estimates. Pearson's Chi-square tests determined significant differences in proportions. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine associations of socio-demographic characteristics with use of NSAIDs.
Results
Of 3,175 participants, 357 (11.2%), and 16% of those aged > 55 years, reported using either non-specific NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors, other than low-dose aspirin. Among people using NSAIDs, 60.8% had hypertension, 30.8% had Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease, 17.2% had a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 20.7% had a > 15% 10-year CVD risk. The prevalence of NSAID use among people with hypertension was 16%, with kidney disease 15.9%, and a history of CVD 20.0%. Among people taking diuretics, 24.1% were also taking NSAIDs, and of those taking medications for gastro-esophageal reflux, 24.7% were on NSAIDs. Prescription-only COX-2 inhibitors, but not other NSAIDs, were used more by people > 75 years than by 35-54 year olds (OR 3.7, 95% CI 2.0, 6.7), and also were more commonly used by people with hypertension, cardiac and kidney disease.
Conclusions
There is a high prevalence of current NSAID use among groups at-risk for significant drug-related adverse events or who have major chronic conditions that are relative contraindications to NSAID use. Assessment of absolute risks regarding cardiovascular and kidney disease need to take into account use of medications such as NSAIDs. The potential to make a substantial impact on chronic disease burden via improved use of NSAIDs is considerable.
doi:10.1186/1471-2296-12-70
PMCID: PMC3166902  PMID: 21733195
COX-2 inhibitors; Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory; chronic disease; cardiovascular risk
9.  Association between frequent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and breast cancer 
BMC Cancer  2005;5:159.
Background
Eighty percent of all breast cancers and almost 90% of breast cancer deaths occur among post-menopausal women. We used a nested case control design to examine the association between nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use and breast cancer occurrence among women over 65 years of age. The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme is expressed more in breast cancers than in normal breast tissue. COX-2 inhibition may have a role in breast cancer prevention.
Methods
In the Canadian province of Quebec, physician services are covered through a governmental insurance plan. Medication costs are covered for those ≥ 65 years of age and a publicly funded screening program for breast cancer targets all women 50 years of age or older. We obtained encrypted data from these insurance databases on all women ≥ 65 years of age who filled a prescription for COX-2 inhibitors, non-selective NSAIDs (ns-NSAIDs), aspirin, or acetaminophen between January 1998 and December 2002. Cases were defined as those women who have undergone mammography between April 2001 and June 2002 and had a diagnosis of breast cancer within six months following mammography. Controls included those who have undergone mammography between April 2001 and June 2002 without a diagnosis of any cancer during the six months following mammography. The exposure of interest, frequent NSAID use, was defined as use of ns-NSAIDs and/or COX-2 inhibitors for ≥ 90 days during the year prior to mammography. Frequent use served as a convenient proxy for long term chronic use.
Results
We identified 1,090 cases and 44,990 controls. Cases were older and more likely to have breast cancer risk factors. Logistic regression models adjusting for potential confounders showed that frequent use of ns-NSAIDs and/or COX-2 inhibitors was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer (OR: 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.64–0.89). Results were similar for COX-2 inhibitors (0.81, 0.68–0.97) and ns-NSAIDs (0.65, 0.43–0.99), when assessed separately. Frequent use of aspirin at doses > 100 mg/day in the year prior to mammography was also associated with a lower risk of breast cancer (0.75, 0.64–0.89). However, use of aspirin at doses ≤ 100 mg/day did not have any association with breast cancer (0.91, 0.71–1.16).
Conclusion
Women who use NSAIDs or doses of aspirin > 100 mg frequently may have a lower risk of breast cancer.
doi:10.1186/1471-2407-5-159
PMCID: PMC1334211  PMID: 16343343
10.  Aspirin, Non-Aspirin Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs, or Acetaminophen and risk of ovarian cancer 
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)  2012;23(2):311-319.
Background
Aspirin, non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NA-NSAIDs) and acetaminophen all have biologic effects that might reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. However, epidemiologic data on this question are mixed.
Methods
A population-based, case-control study in western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and western New York State included 902 women with incident epithelial ovarian cancer who were diagnosed between February 2003 to November 2008 and 1,802 matched controls. Regular use (at least 2 tablets per week for 6 months or more) of aspirin, NA-NSAIDs, and acetaminophen before the reference date (9 months before interview date) was assessed by in-person interview. We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
The OR for aspirin use was 0.81 (95% CI= 0.63–1.03). Decreased risks were found among women who used aspirin continuously (0.71 [0.54–0.94]) or at a low-standardized daily dose (0.72 [0.53–0.97]), who used aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (0.72 [0.57–0.97]), who used aspirin more recently, or who used selective COX-2 inhibitors (0.60 [0.39–0.94]). No associations were observed among women using non-selective NA-NSAIDs or acetaminophen.
Conclusions
Risk reductions of ovarian cancer were observed with use of aspirin or selective COX-2 inhibitors. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the inherent study limitations and biases.
doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182456ad3
PMCID: PMC3454462  PMID: 22252409
11.  Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding associated with selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors, traditional non‐aspirin non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, aspirin and combinations 
Gut  2006;55(12):1731-1738.
Background
The risks and benefits of coxibs, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and aspirin treatment are under intense debate.
Objective
To determine the risk of peptic ulcer upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) associated with the use of coxibs, traditional NSAIDs, aspirin or combinations of these drugs in clinical practice.
Methods
A hospital‐based, case–control study in the general community of patients from the National Health System in Spain. The study included 2777 consecutive patients with endoscopy‐proved major UGIB because of the peptic lesions and 5532 controls matched by age, hospital and month of admission. Adjusted relative risk (adj RR) of UGIB determined by conditional logistic regression analysis is provided.
Results
Use of non‐aspirin‐NSAIDs increased the risk of UGIB (adj RR 5.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.5 to 6.2). Among non‐aspirin‐NSAIDs, aceclofenac (adj RR 3.1; 95% CI 2.3 to 4.2) had the lowest RR, whereas ketorolac (adj RR 14.4; 95% CI 5.2 to 39.9) had the highest. Rofecoxib treatment increased the risk of UGIB (adj RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 4.0), whereas celecoxib, paracetamol or concomitant use of a proton pump inhibitor with an NSAID presented no increased risk. Non‐aspirin antiplatelet treatment (clopidogrel/ticlopidine) had a similar risk of UGIB (adj RR 2.8; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.2) to cardioprotective aspirin at a dose of 100 mg/day (adj RR 2.7; 95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) or anticoagulants (adj RR 2.8; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.7). An apparent interaction was found between low‐dose aspirin and use of non‐aspirin‐NSAIDs, coxibs or thienopyridines, which increased further the risk of UGIB in a similar way.
Conclusions
Coxib use presents a lower RR of UGIB than non‐selective NSAIDs. However, when combined with low‐dose aspirin, the differences between non‐selective NSAIDs and coxibs tend to disappear. Treatment with either non‐aspirin antiplatelet or cardioprotective aspirin has a similar risk of UGIB.
doi:10.1136/gut.2005.080754
PMCID: PMC1856452  PMID: 16687434
12.  Post-diagnostic prescriptions for low-dose aspirin and breast cancer-specific survival: a nested case-control study in a breast cancer cohort from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink 
Introduction
Recent observational studies indicate that post-diagnostic use of aspirin in breast cancer patients may protect against cancer progression perhaps by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 dependent mechanisms. Evidence also supports a crucial role for interactions between tumour cells and circulating platelets in cancer growth and dissemination, therefore, use of low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk of death from cancer in breast cancer patients.
Methods
A cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (1998 to 2006) were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (and confirmed by cancer registry linkage). Cancer-specific deaths were identified up to 2011 from Office for National Statistics mortality data. A nested case-control analysis was conducted using conditional logistic regression to compare post-diagnostic aspirin exposure using General Practice prescription data in 1,435 cases (breast cancer deaths) with 5,697 controls (matched by age and year of diagnosis).
Results
After breast cancer diagnosis, 18.3% of cancer-specific deaths and 18.5% of matched controls received at least one prescription for low-dose aspirin, corresponding to an odds ratio (OR) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.83, 1.15). Adjustment for potential confounders (including stage and grade) had little impact on this estimate. No dose response relationship was observed when the number of tablets was investigated and no associations were seen when analyses were stratified by receipt of prescriptions for aspirin in the pre-diagnostic period, by stage at diagnosis or by receipt of prescriptions for hormone therapy.
Conclusions
Overall, in this large population-based cohort of breast cancer patients, there was little evidence of an association between receipt of post-diagnostic prescriptions for low-dose aspirin and breast cancer-specific death. However, information was not available on medication compliance or over-the-counter use of aspirin, which may have contributed to the null findings.
doi:10.1186/bcr3638
PMCID: PMC4053148  PMID: 24708725
13.  A review of the benefits and risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis 
This review is intended to provide physicians with an overview of the benefits and risks associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of their patients with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis (OA). New information on the inflammatory component of OA and the cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-specific inhibitors has prompted efforts to revise the current recommendations for the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of patients with OA. Clinical studies have shown that naproxen and ibuprofen are significantly more effective at reducing OA pain than is acetaminophen, the traditional first-line therapy, which has no apparent anti-inflammatory activity in the joints. The theoretical advantage of COX-2-specific inhibitors in reducing gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity has been demonstrated by clinical studies. GI complications can be reduced by using lower NSAID doses for the shortest duration or with a concomitant proton-pump inhibitor. All prescription NSAIDs carry a black box warning regarding CV risks; these risks vary among the NSAIDs. While ibuprofen and diclofenac are associated with an increased CV risk, naproxen was associated with a neutral CV risk relative to placebo. Ibuprofen, but not naproxen, attenuates the antiplatelet effects of aspirin. An understanding of the risks and benefits is important when choosing an NSAID. An exhaustive search of the medical literature since 1990 was conducted using the words "ibuprofen," "naproxen," "COX-2-specific NSAIDs," "nonspecific NSAIDs," "low-dose aspirin," and "nonprescription dosage." Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCISEARCH. This article provides primary care physicians with the information needed to assist them in making more informed decisions in managing patients experiencing mild-to-moderate OA pain.
doi:10.1186/1750-4732-3-1
PMCID: PMC2646740  PMID: 19126235
14.  Adherence to the preventive strategies for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug- or low-dose aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injuries 
Journal of Gastroenterology  2013;48(5):559-573.
As the aging of the population advances, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or low-dose aspirin (LDA) is increasing. Their use is accompanied by a risk of serious complications, such as hemorrhage or perforation of the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, gastroprotective strategies upon the prescription of NSAIDs/LDA are outlined in several guidelines or recommendations. Because all NSAIDs including cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have cardiovascular (CV) toxicity, recent guidelines are based on not only GI risks but also CV risks of NSAID users. Assessment of the adherence to evidence-based guidelines or recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs/LDA in clinical practice is an important issue. Here, we summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the preventive effects of antisecretory drugs for NSAID- or LDA-induced peptic ulcers. Then, we describe preventive strategies upon the prescription of NSAIDs/LDA outlined in several guidelines or recommendations, and describe studies on adherence and outcomes of adherence to these preventive strategies. Finally, we discuss strategies to increase the adherence rate, and changing pattern of GI events associated with NSAIDs/LDA. In Japan, the preventive strategies upon the prescription of NSAIDs/LDA are expected to spread rapidly because the use of proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of recurrence of NSAID- or LDA-induced peptic ulcers and the use of COX-2 for the palliation of acute pain were recently approved under the national health insurance system. Further studies on adherence to the preventive strategies and the outcomes of adherence, which include both GI events and CV events, in the Japanese population are required.
doi:10.1007/s00535-013-0771-8
PMCID: PMC3654181  PMID: 23460386
Adherence; Preventive strategy; Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; Low-dose aspirin; Gastrointestinal injury
15.  NSAIDs 
Clinical Evidence  2010;2010:1108.
Introduction
NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between oral NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 36 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: differences in efficacy among different oral NSAIDs, between oral and topical NSAIDs, and between oral NSAIDs and alternative analgesics; dose–response relationship of oral NSAIDs; and H2 blockers, misoprostol, or proton pump inhibitors to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs.
Key Points
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit the cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzyme to exert their anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic effects.
No important differences in efficacy have been demonstrated between different oral NSAIDs in the management of musculoskeletal disorders. There seems to be a plateau for effectiveness, with recommended doses close to those required for maximal effectiveness. However, the risk of adverse effects increases with increasing dose, with no plateau.Oral NSAIDs that selectively inhibit COX-2 have a reduced risk of causing gastrointestinal ulcers compared with less-selective NSAIDs. However, COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of myocardial infarction and other cardiovascular events.Paracetamol is less effective than oral NSAIDs at reducing pain in osteoarthritis, but similarly effective for acute musculoskeletal pain.
Misoprostol reduces serious NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications and symptomatic ulcers compared with placebo, but is itself associated with adverse effects including diarrhoea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Proton pump inhibitors and H2 antagonists have been shown to reduce endoscopic ulcers in people taking NSAIDs, but their clinical benefits are less clear.We don't know which treatment is the most effective at reducing gastrointestinal adverse effects from oral NSAIDs.
We don't know whether topical NSAIDs are beneficial.
PMCID: PMC3217803  PMID: 21733202
16.  A Large Cohort Study of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use and Melanoma Incidence 
Results of laboratory studies indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may have chemopreventive activity and therapeutic efficacy against melanoma. However, few published epidemiological studies have examined the association between NSAID use and melanoma risk. We examined whether NSAID use was associated with melanoma risk among 63 809 men and women in the Vitamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) cohort study. Participants self-reported NSAID use (low-dose aspirin, regular or extra-strength aspirin, and nonaspirin NSAIDs) during the previous 10 years and data related to their melanoma risk factors on a baseline questionnaire. After linkage of the VITAL database to the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry, 349 patients with incident melanoma were identified through December 31, 2005. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of melanoma by NSAID use as categorized by overall use, duration of use, and dose (expressed as average number of days of use during the past 10 years). All statistical tests were two-sided. After adjusting for melanoma risk factors and indications for NSAID use, no association between NSAID use and melanoma risk was found. When use of at least 4 d/wk was compared with nonuse, no melanoma risk reduction was detected for any NSAID dose (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.48), for any NSAID excluding low-dose aspirin (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.43), for regular- or extra-strength aspirin (HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.58), or for nonaspirin NSAIDs (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.99). Moreover, NSAID use was not associated with tumor invasion (Pinteraction = .38), tumor thickness (Ptrend = .98), or risk of metastasis (HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.32 to 3.62). NSAIDs do not appear to be good candidates for the chemoprevention of melanoma.
doi:10.1093/jnci/djn154
PMCID: PMC2561247  PMID: 18577752
17.  A Large Cohort Study of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use and Melanoma Incidence 
Results of laboratory studies indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may have chemopreventive activity and therapeutic efficacy against melanoma. However, few published epidemiological studies have examined the association between NSAID use and melanoma risk. We examined whether NSAID use was associated with melanoma risk among 63 809 men and women in the Vitamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) cohort study. Participants self-reported NSAID use (low-dose aspirin, regular or extra-strength aspirin, and nonaspirin NSAIDs) during the previous 10 years and data related to their melanoma risk factors on a baseline questionnaire. After linkage of the VITAL database to the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry, 349 patients with incident melanoma were identified through December 31, 2005. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of melanoma by NSAID use as categorized by overall use, duration of use, and dose (expressed as average number of days of use during the past 10 years). All statistical tests were two-sided. After adjusting for melanoma risk factors and indications for NSAID use, no association between NSAID use and melanoma risk was found. When use of at least 4 d/wk was compared with nonuse, no melanoma risk reduction was detected for any NSAID dose (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.48), for any NSAID excluding low-dose aspirin (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.43), for regular- or extra-strength aspirin (HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.58), or for nonaspirin NSAIDs (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.99). Moreover, NSAID use was not associated with tumor invasion (Pinteraction = .38), tumor thickness (Ptrend = .98), or risk of metastasis (HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.32 to 3.62). NSAIDs do not appear to be good candidates for the chemoprevention of melanoma.
doi:10.1093/jnci/djn154
PMCID: PMC2561247  PMID: 18577752
18.  Medications (NSAID, Statins, PPI) and the Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients with Barrett’s Esophagus 
Gastroenterology  2010;138(7):2260-2266.
Background & Aims
Limited evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPI), non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs (NSAID)/aspirin and statins may be associated with low risk of esophageal neoplasia. However, the possible effect these medications may have on the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with existing Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is unclear.
Methods
We conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of patients with BE identified in the national Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) computerized databases. Cases with incident EAC were matched by incidence density sampling to controls with BE who remained without EAC at the date of the EAC diagnosis for the corresponding case. We identified prescriptions for PPI, NSAID/aspirin, and statins that were filled between BE diagnosis and EAC diagnosis. Incidence density ratios were calculated using conditional logistic regression models that adjusted for race, outpatient encounters, a disease comorbidity index, and socio-economic status.
Results
In a cohort of 11,823 patients with first time BE diagnosis, we examined 116 EAC cases and 696 matched controls. Most cases and controls had at least one filled PPI prescription (95% vs. 94%, p=0.5). In this setting of almost universal PPI use, filled NSAID/aspirin prescriptions were associated with a reduced risk of EAC (adjusted incidence density ratio: 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97). Filled statin prescriptions were also associated with a reduction in EAC risk (0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.86), with a significant trend toward greater risk reduction with longer duration of statin use. However, the strong inverse associations with even short periods of use raise concerns of uncontrolled confounding.
Conclusion
This observational study indicates that in patients with Barrett’s esophagus using PPI, NSAID/aspirin or statin therapy might reduce the risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma.
doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.02.045
PMCID: PMC2883678  PMID: 20188100
epidemiology; chemoprevention; GERD; VA; Medicare
19.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and ovarian cancer risk: findings from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study and systematic review 
Cancer causes & control : CCC  2012;23(11):1839-1852.
Background
Chronic inflammation has been proposed as a risk factor for ovarian cancer. Some data suggest that anti-inflammatory medications may be protective against ovarian cancer; however, results have been inconsistent.
Methods
We evaluated the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer with regular use of NSAIDs prospectively in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, using Cox proportional hazard models. We also examined the risk of common subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer (serous, mucinous, endometrioid, clear cell and other epithelial) with regular use of NSAIDs. In addition, we performed meta-analyses summarizing the risk of ovarian cancer with “regular use” of NSAIDs in previously published studies.
Results
We did not observe a significant association between regular use of NSAIDs with ovarian cancer risk in the AARP cohort (aspirin: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87–1.29; non-aspirin NSAIDs: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74–1.15); however summary estimates from prospective cohort studies demonstrated that use of non-aspirin NSAIDs may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.01). Although not significant, we found that mucinous tumors were inversely associated with non-aspirin NSAID use (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23–2.10) in the AARP cohort, which was supported by the meta-analysis (RR 0.69, CI 0.50–0.94.)
Conclusion
Although results from the NIH-AARP cohort study were not statistically significant, our meta-analysis suggests that non-aspirin NSAIDs may be protective against ovarian cancer. Additional analyses, focusing on dose, duration, and frequency of NSAID use and accounting for ovarian cancer heterogeneity are necessary to further elucidate the association between NSAID use and ovarian cancer risk.
doi:10.1007/s10552-012-0063-2
PMCID: PMC3469773  PMID: 22972000
Aspirin; Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Inflammation; Ovarian cancer; Prospective study
20.  Effect of Aspirin and other NSAIDs on Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Incidence by Hormone Receptor Status: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study 
Purpose
Aspirin and other non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can inhibit aromatase activity and thus could selectively lower incidence of hormone receptor positive tumors. We assessed whether the association of aspirin and other NSAIDs with postmenopausal breast cancer risk differs by estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER, PR) status of the tumor.
Methods
A population-based cohort of 26,580 postmenopausal women was linked to a SEER Cancer Registry to identify incident breast cancers. Regular use of aspirin and other NSAIDs was reported on a self-administered questionnaire mailed in 1992. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate multivariate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer incidence overall and by ER and PR status, adjusting for multiple breast cancer risk factors.
Results
Through 2005, 1,581 incident breast cancer cases were observed. Compared to aspirin never users, women who regularly consumed aspirin had a lower risk of breast cancer (RR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.71–0.90), and there was evidence for lower risk with increasing frequency of use (RR=0.71 for aspirin use 6 or more times/week versus never use; p-trend=0.00001). Inverse associations for regular aspirin use were observed for ER+ (RR=0.77; 95% CI 0.67–0.89), ER− (RR=0.78; 95% CI 0.56–1.08), PR+ (RR=0.79; 95% CI 0.68–0.92), and PR− (RR=0.73; 95% CI 0.56–0.95) breast cancers. In contrast, use of other NSAIDs was not associated with breast cancer incidence overall (RR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.85–1.07), or by ER or PR status.
Conclusions
Aspirin, but not other NSAID use, was associated with about 20% lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer and did not vary by ER or PR status of the tumor, suggesting that the hypothesized protective effects of aspirin may either be through cellular pathways independent of estrogen or progesterone signaling, or on tumor microenvironment.
doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1074-x
PMCID: PMC2997337  PMID: 20669045
breast cancer; aspirin; NSAIDs; hormone receptors; prevention
21.  NSAIDs 
Clinical Evidence  2007;2007:1108.
Introduction
NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged >60 years.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 36 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: alternative analgesics, H2 blockers, misoprostol, NSAIDs (systemic, topical, differences in efficacy between, dose-response relationship of), proton pump inhibitors.
Key Points
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit the cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzyme to exert their anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic effects.
No important differences in efficacy have been demonstrated between different systemic NSAIDs in the management of musculoskeletal disorders. There seems to be a plateau for effectiveness, with recommended doses close to those required for maximal effectiveness. However, the risk of adverse effects increases with increasing dose, with no plateau.Systemic NSAIDs that selectively inhibit COX-2 have a reduced risk of causing gastrointestinal ulcers compared with less-selective NSAIDs. However, COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of myocardial infarction and other cardiovascular events.Paracetamol is less effective than systemic NSAIDs at reducing pain in osteoarthritis, but similarly effective for acute musculoskeletal pain.
Misoprostol reduces serious NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications and symptomatic ulcers compared with placebo, but is itself associated with adverse effects including diarrhoea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Proton pump inhibitors and H2 antagonists have been shown to reduce endoscopic ulcers in people taking NSAIDs, but their clinical benefits are less clear.We don't know which treatment is the most effective at reducing gastrointestinal adverse effects from systemic NSAIDs.
We don't know whether topical NSAIDs are beneficial.
PMCID: PMC2943791  PMID: 19454084
22.  Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Use and the Risk of Parkinson's Disease 
Neuroepidemiology  2011;36(3):155-161.
Background
Experimental evidence supports a preventative role for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Parkinson's disease (PD).
Methods
We investigated associations between use of aspirin, nonaspirin NSAIDs, and acetaminophen and PD in a large population-based case-control study using Danish health and pharmacy registries. We identified 1,931 PD cases reported in hospital or outpatient clinic records who had received a primary diagnosis of PD between 2001 and 2006, and 9,651 age- and sex-matched controls from the Danish population register. Prescription medication use was documented in a pharmacy database covering all residents of Denmark since 1995.
Results
Adjusting for age, sex, use of cardiovascular disease drugs, diagnosis of chronic pulmonary obstructive disorder, and Charlson comorbidity scores, and excluding prescriptions filled within 5 years before diagnosis, we found no evidence for an association between PD and either aspirin use (OR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.82, 1.14) or nonaspirin NSAID use (OR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.86, 1.09), regardless of intensity of use; further, there was no association between use of ibuprofen or acetaminophen and PD.
Conclusion
Our findings provide no evidence for a protective effect of nonaspirin and aspirin NSAID prescription drug use shortly before PD onset.
doi:10.1159/000325653
PMCID: PMC3095838  PMID: 21508649
Parkinson's disease; Case-control study; Anti-inflammatory drugs
23.  Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, Acetaminophen, and Risk of Skin Cancer in the Nurses’ Health Study 
Cancer causes & control : CCC  2012;23(9):1451-1461.
Purpose
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been associated with lower risk of certain cancers, but data on the effect on skin cancer risk have been limited and contradictory. We prospectively examined whether use of NSAIDS or acetaminophen was associated with a lower risk of skin cancer in women.
Methods
The 92,125 Caucasian women in the Nurses’ Health Study provided information on aspirin use in 1980. Other NSAIDs and acetaminophen were added in 1990. Medication use, frequency, and quantity were reassessed on biennial questionnaires. Through 2008, we confirmed 658 melanoma cases, 1337 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cases, and had 15,079 self-reports of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). We used COX proportional hazards models to compute relative risks (RR) adjusted for known skin cancer risk factors.
Results
Neither aspirin nor non-aspirin NSAID use was associated with a lower risk of melanoma, SCC or BCC, even for women with high quantity, frequency, or duration of use. Instead, we observed an increased risk of melanoma among current aspirin users (RR=1.32, 95% CI 1.03–1.70), though an increase of similar magnitude among past users and lack of a dose-response effect did not support a pharmacologic mechanism. We observed a mild reduction in SCC risk in current acetaminophen users (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.75–1.02), with a linear decrease in risk with greater frequency of use (p=0.04).
Conclusions
Aspirin and other NSAIDs were not associated with a lower risk of melanoma, SCC or BCC in women. Our large, prospective study does not support a chemoprotective effect of NSAIDs against skin cancers.
doi:10.1007/s10552-012-0019-6
PMCID: PMC3416973  PMID: 22763500
skin cancer; melanoma; basal cell carcinoma; (cutaneous) squamous cell carcinoma; aspirin; acetaminophen; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs)
24.  Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies 
PLoS Medicine  2011;8(9):e1001098.
David Henry and colleagues reevaluate the evidence from observational studies on the cardiovascular risk associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Background
Randomised trials have highlighted the cardiovascular risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high doses and sometimes atypical settings. Here, we provide estimates of the comparative risks with individual NSAIDs at typical doses in community settings.
Methods and Findings
We performed a systematic review of community-based controlled observational studies. We conducted comprehensive literature searches, extracted adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates, and pooled the estimates for major cardiovascular events associated with use of individual NSAIDs, in different doses, and in populations with low and high background risks of cardiovascular events. We also compared individual drugs in pair-wise (within study) analyses, generating ratios of RRs (RRRs). Thirty case-control studies included 184,946 cardiovascular events, and 21 cohort studies described outcomes in >2.7 million exposed individuals. Of the extensively studied drugs (ten or more studies), the highest overall risks were seen with rofecoxib, 1.45 (95% CI 1.33, 1.59), and diclofenac, 1.40 (1.27, 1.55), and the lowest with ibuprofen, 1.18 (1.11, 1.25), and naproxen, 1.09 (1.02, 1.16). In a sub-set of studies, risk was elevated with low doses of rofecoxib, 1.37 (1.20, 1.57), celecoxib, 1.26 (1.09, 1.47), and diclofenac, 1.22 (1.12, 1.33), and rose in each case with higher doses. Ibuprofen risk was seen only with higher doses. Naproxen was risk-neutral at all doses. Of the less studied drugs etoricoxib, 2.05 (1.45, 2.88), etodolac, 1.55 (1.28, 1.87), and indomethacin, 1.30 (1.19, 1.41), had the highest risks. In pair-wise comparisons, etoricoxib had a higher RR than ibuprofen, RRR = 1.68 (99% CI 1.14, 2.49), and naproxen, RRR = 1.75 (1.16, 2.64); etodolac was not significantly different from naproxen and ibuprofen. Naproxen had a significantly lower risk than ibuprofen, RRR = 0.92 (0.87, 0.99). RR estimates were constant with different background risks for cardiovascular disease and rose early in the course of treatment.
Conclusions
This review suggests that among widely used NSAIDs, naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen are least likely to increase cardiovascular risk. Diclofenac in doses available without prescription elevates risk. The data for etoricoxib were sparse, but in pair-wise comparisons this drug had a significantly higher RR than naproxen or ibuprofen. Indomethacin is an older, rather toxic drug, and the evidence on cardiovascular risk casts doubt on its continued clinical use.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
The analgesic (pain relieving), anti-pyretic (fever reducing), and anti-inflammatory (inflammation reducing) properties of the class of drug called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—so called to distinguish this class of drug from steroids, which have similar but additional effects—make NSAIDs one of the most frequently used drugs for the symptomatic treatment of many common conditions. Some preparations of NSAIDs can be bought over the counter, and all are available on prescription, but this class of drug has well documented side effects and risks: people taking NSAIDs are on average four times more likely to develop gastrointestinal complications than people not taking these drugs (that is, the relative risk of gastrointestinal complications is 4), and the relative risk for associated cardiovascular complications—cardiovascular events during treatment with NSAIDs has been one of the most studied adverse drug reactions in history—ranges from 1.0 to 2.0.
Why Was This Study Done?
Several large systematic reviews, including one conducted by these researchers, have previously highlighted apparent differences in cardiovascular risk between individual drugs, but these reviews have provided limited information on dose effects and relevant patient characteristics and have not directly compared the cardiovascular risks of each drug. Furthermore, most of these analyses extensively investigated only a few drugs, with little information on some widely available compounds, such as etoricoxib, etodolac, meloxicam, indomethacin, and piroxicam. Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to update cardiovascular risk estimates for all currently available NSAIDs and to compare the risks between individual drugs. In order to investigate the likely effects of over-the-counter use of NSAIDS, the researchers also wanted to include in their review an analysis of the cardiovascular risk at low doses of relevant drugs, over short time periods, and in low risk populations.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers included only controlled observational studies in their literature search and review (conducted by searching a wide range of databases for studies published from 1985 until November 2010) because randomized controlled trials have reported only small numbers of cardiovascular events that are insufficient for the purposes of this study. The researchers assessed the methodological quality of selected studies, analyzed adjustment variables (for example, age, sex, other medications), and summarized overall results for individual drugs across studies as pooled relative risk estimates. For the subsets of studies that provided relevant data, they pooled within-study relative risk estimates with high and low doses and in people at high and low risk of cardiovascular events, and performed a series of within-study (pair-wise) comparisons and for each pair of drugs, to estimate their comparative relative risks by using a validated online tool to give a ratio of relative risks.
Using this methodology, the researchers included 30 case-control studies and 21 cohort studies: the highest overall risks were with rofecoxib and diclofenac, and the lowest risks were with ibuprofen and naproxen, The researchers found that risk was elevated with low doses of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and diclofenac, and rose with higher doses. Ibuprofen risk was only evident with higher doses. Naproxen did not cause any additional risks at any dose. Of the less studied NSAIDs, etoricoxib, etodolac, and indomethacin had the highest risks. In the pair-wise comparisons, the researchers found that etoricoxib had a higher relative risk than ibuprofen and naproxen, etodolac was not significantly different from naproxen and ibuprofen, and naproxen had a significantly lower risk than ibuprofen. Finally, the researchers showed that relative risk estimates were constant with different background risks for cardiovascular disease and increased early the course of treatment.
What Do These Findings Mean?
This updated systematic review gives some new information on some familiar NSAIDs, and provides potentially important information on some little studied ones, which will help to inform clinical and regulatory decisions. The specific findings suggest that among widely used NSAIDs, naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen are least likely to increase cardiovascular risk, whereas diclofenac in doses available without prescription elevates risk. Based on sparse data, etoricoxib has a high risk of cardiovascular events and is similar to drugs that have been withdrawn because of safety concerns. Indomethacin is an older, rather toxic drug, and the new evidence on cardiovascular risk casts doubt on its continued clinical use.
Additional Information
Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098.
Wikipedia defines and discusses NSAIDs
The UK National Health Service and MedicineNet have useful information on NSAIDs that is suitable for patients
The National Prescribing Service in Australia has a range of information on the use of NSAIDs
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098
PMCID: PMC3181230  PMID: 21980265
25.  Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use and Risk of Adenomatous and Hyperplastic Polyps 
Adenomatous polyps are known precursor lesions for colorectal cancer and some hyperplastic polyps also have malignant potential. The use of aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) is associated with a reduced risk of adenomatous polyps; however, less evidence exists regarding NSAID use and hyperplastic polyp risk. We conducted a colonoscopy-based case-control study including 2028 polyp cases (1,529 adenomatous and 499 hyperplastic) and 3,431 polyp-free controls. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to derived adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measure of the association between NSAID use and polyp risk. Use of baby aspirin, regular aspirin, and non-aspirin NSAIDs, were associated with a reduced risk of adenomatous polyps (OR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.66–0.93, OR = 0.73; 0.58–0.90, and OR = 0.67; 0.53–0.86, respectively). Baby aspirin was also associated with a reduced risk of hyperplastic polyps (OR = 0.74; 0.56–0.97). Although a dose response was seen with adenoma risk and regular use of any NSAIDs (less than 7 doses per week, 7 doses per week, and greater than 7 doses per week), a dose response was not seen with hyperplastic polyps. We found no evidence of interaction between NSAID dose and duration and polyp risk. The use of any NSAID regardless of type was associated with a reduced risk of adenomatous polyps however regular aspirin and COX-2 inhibitors use was not associated with hyperplastic polyp risk.
doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0107
PMCID: PMC3203989  PMID: 21764857
Colonic Polyps; Epidemiology; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; hyperplastic polyp

Results 1-25 (1303637)