Key result
Clinically significant anemia or blood loss linked to ~14% more overall adverse events, including MI.
Why the study?
Chronic NSAID use is associated with GI toxicity including occult blood loss and clinically significant anemia, but the clinical importance of this anemia/blood loss was unclear.
Does clinically significant anemia/blood loss increase the risk of adverse events, including cardiovascular events, in patients from celecoxib clinical trials?
Observational (n=51,048)
Double-blind
null
Yes
Does clinically significant anemia/blood loss increase the risk of adverse events, including cardiovascular events, in patients from celecoxib clinical trials?
Absolute Event Rate: 66% vs 58%
Clinically significant anemia or blood loss in patients taking NSAIDs or celecoxib is associated with an increased risk of serious non-GI adverse events, including myocardial infarction and coronary artery disease.
Clinically significant anemia/blood loss signals markedly higher AE rates including CV events; leaves open whether monitoring or prevention alters outcomes in NSAID users.
BACKGROUND: Chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, including occult blood loss and the development of clinically significant anemia. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical importance of clinically significant anemia/blood loss. METHODS: Pooled analysis of 51 blinded, controlled clinical studies ≥4 weeks duration from the celecoxib clinical trial database, comparing celecoxib with NSAIDs or placebo. The adverse event (AE) profile in patients with clinically significant anemia/blood loss (defined as decreases in hemoglobin ≥2 g/dL and/or hematocrit by ≥10% from baseline) was compared with the AE profile in patients without blood loss. Events that occurred in <0.5% of patients were excluded from any comparisons. A threefold difference between groups was defined arbitrarily as being markedly higher. RESULTS: Overall 932/51,048 patients experienced clinically significant anemia/blood loss. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. The incidence of AEs was markedly higher in patients who experienced clinically significant anemia/blood loss than those who did not; the majority of these differences were for GI AEs or their likely sequelae. The incidence of the following non-GI related AEs was also markedly higher in patients with blood loss: coronary artery disease (1.2% vs 0.3%), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.2%), and pneumonia (1.7% vs 0.4%). Withdrawals due to AEs were more common among patients who experienced blood loss (16.7% vs 10.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant anemia/blood loss may have clinically important adverse consequences beyond the sequelae previously known to be associated with NSAID-related GI effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gina Sands (2012) conducted an observational in Osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic low back pain, Alzheimer disease, and/or spontaneous adenomatous colorectal polyps (n=51,048). Clinically significant anemia or blood loss (hemoglobin decrease ≥2 g/dL and/or hematocrit decrease ≥10%) vs. No clinically significant anemia or blood loss was evaluated on Incidence of any adverse event. Clinically significant anemia or blood loss was associated with a higher incidence of overall adverse events (66% vs 58%) and a markedly higher incidence of both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal events, including myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.2%) and pneumonia (1.7% vs 0.4%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: