Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with lumiracoxib compared with ibuprofen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Kivitz, Alan; Nayiager, S.; Schimansky, T.; Gimona, A.; Thurston, Helen; Hawkey, Christopher J.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01956.x

Cited by 58 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, Kivitz and colleagues 214 reported significantly more withdrawals for any reason in the lumiracoxib 400-800 mg/day arms than in the celecoxib 400 mg/day arm.…”

Section: Total Withdrawalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Chen

Jobanputra²,

Barton³

et al. 2008

Health Technol Assess

271

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. NHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a very reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 30-40 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £300 per volume. Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can only be purchased for the current or forthcoming volume. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. Declared competing interests of authors: P Jobanputra has received funding from Pfizer for two research studies: 'quality of care in patients with musculoskeletal pain who use NSAIDs' and 'perception of risk in relation to NSAID use for patients with RA and OA'. He has also been entertained, paid to speak and provided with financial assistance for educational purposes by many manufacturers of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, new and old. RS Taylor has undertaken paid presentations for Pfizer (Canada) and Novartis (UK) not related to rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis management. HTA Published April 2008This report should be referenced as follows:Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Fry-Smith A, Harris G, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) NIHR Health Technology Assessment ProgrammeT he Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in th...

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, Kivitz and colleagues 214 reported significantly more withdrawals for any reason in the lumiracoxib 400-800 mg/day arms than in the celecoxib 400 mg/day arm.…”

Section: Total Withdrawalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stratified analyses of endoscopic ulcers according to H. pylori status were reported in Novartis Study 0110, 214 and TARGET reported subgroup analyses of POBs and MIs by low-dose aspirin use. None of the identified trials reported subgroup analyses for age, prior GI status or steroid or anticoagulant use.…”

Section: Subgroup Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Chen

Jobanputra²,

Barton³

et al. 2008

Health Technol Assess

271

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…60 Similar reductions in gastrointestinal risk were observed with the newer COX-2 inhibitors valdecoxib, etoricoxib and lumiracoxib. [61][62][63] …”

Section: Use Of Cox-2 Inhibitorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evidence-Based Update on Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Ong¹,

Lirk²,

Tan³

et al. 2007

Clinical Medicine & Research

491

286

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including both traditional nonselective NSAIDs and the selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, are widely used for their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. NSAIDs are a necessary choice in pain management because of the integrated role of the COX pathway in the generation of inflammation and in the biochemical recognition of pain. This group of drugs has recently come under scrutiny because of recent focus in the literature on the various adverse effects that can occur when applying NSAIDs.This review will provide an educational update on the current evidence of the efficacy and adverse effects of NSAIDs. It aims to answer the following questions: (1) are there clinically important differences in the efficacy and safety between the different NSAIDs, (2) if there are differences, which are the ones that are more effective and associated with fewer adverse effects, and (3) which are the effective therapeutic approaches that could reduce the adverse effects of NSAIDs. Finally, an algorithm is proposed which delineates a general decision-making tree to select the most appropriate analgesic for an individual patient based on the evidence reviewed. Keywords: Analgesics; COX-2 specific inhibitors; NSAIDs; Pain Nonst eroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used medications in the world because of their demonstrated efficacy in reducing pain and inflammation. 1 Their efficacy has been documented in a number of clinical disorders, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, gout, dysmenorrhea, dental pain and headache. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The basic mode of action is inhibition of the pro-inflammatory enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX). NSAIDs as a class comprise both traditional nonselective NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) that nonspecifically inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. Although effective at relieving pain and inflammation, tNSAIDs are associated with a significant risk of serious gastrointestinal adverse events with chronic use. 9 Therefore, specific inhibitors of the COX-2 isoenzyme were developed, thus opening the possibility to provide antiinflammatory and analgesic benefits, while theoretically leaving the gastroprotective activity of the COX-1 isoenzyme intact. However, important concerns have recently been raised regarding the potential cardiovascular toxicity of COX-2 inhibitors. 10This review will provide an educational update of the scientific evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of NSAIDs in view of the emerging new information for this class of drugs. It is composed deliberately to be a classic, pragmatic review and draws on the results of published systematic reviews and studies regarding the topic. It aims to answer the following questions: (1) are there clinically important differences in the efficacy and safety between the different NSAIDs, (2) if there are differences, which are the ones that are more effective and associated with fewer adverse effects, and (3) which are...

show abstract

“…In another celecoxib trial [23], 655 patients with RA were randomly assigned to celecoxib or diclofenac SR for 24 weeks; gastroduodenal ulcers were endoscopically detected in 33 (15.1%) of 218 patients on diclofenac and 8 (3.8%) of 212 patients on celecoxib (p < 0.001). According to a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review, 5 [23,44,45,46,47] endoscopic studies on 2,439 patients comparing celecoxib with nonselective NSAIDs showed a 79% reduction in the relative risk of gastroduodenal ulcers (table 4) [48]. …”

Section: Safety Of Celecoxibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Safety of the Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor Celecoxib in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis in Japan

Sakamoto

Soen

2010

Digestion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders are common adverse reactions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Loxoprofen is a representative NSAID widely used in East Asia. A selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, was introduced in Japan in 2007. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib with those of loxoprofen in Japanese patients. Methods: We analyzed the data from 12 clinical studies conducted in Japan. These data of Japanese patients were compared with those of the patients in the West that had been published after 2000. Results: The efficacy of celecoxib as an analgesic was comparable to that of loxoprofen, whereas serious GI events, including symptomatic ulcers, were significantly less frequent with celecoxib than with loxoprofen in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) (p = 0.039). These results were consistent with the findings of the studies conducted in the West. The incidence of serious cardiovascular events was 0.1% in 2,398 subjects on celecoxib, which was not statistically different from the incidence in subjects on loxoprofen (0.3%; p = 0.3404) and those on placebo (0.2%); this result was also consistent with the data of the studies conducted in the West. Conclusion: The analgesic activity of celecoxib, which was used for the treatment of RA, OA, and low back pain, was comparable to that of loxoprofen, and celecoxib was safer in terms of GI injury often caused by other nonselective NSAIDs.

show abstract

Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with lumiracoxib compared with ibuprofen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Cited by 58 publications

References 38 publications

Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

An Evidence-Based Update on Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Efficacy and Safety of the Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor Celecoxib in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About