Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

Objective To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data. Study selection All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data. Data synthesis 31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death. Conclusions Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation?

Objectives To compare the use of pair-wise meta-analysis methods to multiple treatment comparison (MTC) methods for evidence-based health-care evaluation to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative health-care interventions based on the available evidence. Methods Pair-wise meta-analysis and more complex evidence syntheses, incorporating an MTC component, are applied to three examples: 1) clinical effectiveness of interventions for preventing strokes in people with atrial fibrillation; 2) clinical and cost-effectiveness of using drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease; and 3) clinical and cost-effectiveness of using neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment of influenza. We compare the two synthesis approaches with respect to the assumptions made, empirical estimates produced, and conclusions drawn. Results The difference between point estimates of effectiveness produced by the pair-wise and MTC approaches was generally unpredictable—sometimes agreeing closely whereas in other instances differing considerably. In all three examples, the MTC approach allowed the inclusion of randomized controlled trial evidence ignored in the pair-wise meta-analysis approach. This generally increased the precision of the effectiveness estimates from the MTC model. Conclusions The MTC approach to synthesis allows the evidence base on clinical effectiveness to be treated as a coherent whole, include more data, and sometimes relax the assumptions made in the pair-wise approaches. However, MTC models are necessarily more complex than those developed for pair-wise meta-analysis and thus could be seen as less transparent. Therefore, it is important that model details and the assumptions made are carefully reported alongside the results.

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

Efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan or hyaluronic acids for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan and 2 hyaluronic acids (HAs) in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: This was a multicenter, patient-blind, randomized controlled trial in 660 patients with symptomatic knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 cycle of 3 intraarticular injections per knee of 1 of 3 preparations: a high molecular weight cross-linked hylan, a non-cross-linked medium molecular weight HA of avian origin, or a non-cross-linked low molecular weight HA of bacterial origin. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included local adverse events (effusions or flares) in injected knees. During months 7-12, patients were offered a second cycle of viscosupplementation. RESULTS: Pain relief was similar in all 3 groups. The difference in changes between baseline and 6 months between hylan and the combined HAs was 0.1 on the WOMAC pain score (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.2, 0.3). No relevant differences were observed in any of the secondary efficacy outcomes, and stratified analyses provided no evidence for differences in effects across different patient groups. There was a trend toward more local adverse events in the hylan group than in the HA groups during the first cycle (difference 2.2% [95% CI -2.4, 6.7]), and this trend became more pronounced during the second cycle (difference 6.4% [95% CI 0.6, 12.2]). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence for a difference in efficacy between hylan and HAs. In view of its higher costs and potential for more local adverse events, we see no rationale for the continued use of hylan in patients with knee OA.

Impact of vessel size on outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a subgroup analysis of the SIRTAX trial

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) within a randomized trial (SIRTAX [Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Revascularization]). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention in small-vessel disease is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A total of 1,012 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcome was performed up to 2 years after PCI according to size of the treated vessel (reference vessel diameter < or =2.75 vs. >2.75 mm). RESULTS: Of 1,012 patients, 370 patients (37%) with 495 lesions underwent stent implantation in small vessels only, 504 patients (50%) with 613 lesions in large vessels only, and 138 patients (14%) with 301 lesions in both small and large vessels (mixed). In patients with small-vessel stents, SES reduced MACE by 55% (10.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.004), mainly driven by a 69% reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (6.0% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.001) compared with PES at 2 years. In patients with large- and mixed-vessel stents, rates of MACE (large: 10.4% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.33; mixed: 16.7% vs. 18.0%; p = 0.83) and TLR (large: 6.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.47; mixed: 16.7% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.86) were similar for SES and PES. There were no significant differences with respect to death and myocardial infarction between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PES, SES more effectively reduced MACE and TLR in small-vessel disease. Differences between SES and PES appear less pronounced in patients with large- and mixed-vessel disease. (The SIRTAX trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00297661?order=1; NCT00297661).