PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Loren Laine

Publications and source records attributed to Loren Laine.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison.

BACKGROUND: Cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in placebo-controlled trials, but no clinical trial has been reported with the primary aim of assessing relative cardiovascular risk of these drugs compared with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The MEDAL programme was designed to provide a precise estimate of thrombotic cardiovascular events with the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib versus the traditional NSAID diclofenac. METHODS: We designed a prespecified pooled analysis of data from three trials in which patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to etoricoxib (60 mg or 90 mg daily) or diclofenac (150 mg daily). The primary hypothesis stated that etoricoxib is not inferior to diclofenac, defined as an upper boundary of less than 1.30 for the 95% CI of the hazard ratio for thrombotic cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis. Intention-to-treat analyses were also done to assess consistency of results. These trials are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the numbers NCT00092703, NCT00092742, and NCT00250445. FINDINGS: 34 701 patients (24 913 with osteoarthritis and 9 787 with rheumatoid arthritis) were enrolled. Average treatment duration was 18 months (SD 11.8). 320 patients in the etoricoxib group and 323 in the diclofenac group had thrombotic cardiovascular events, yielding event rates of 1.24 and 1.30 per 100 patient-years and a hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11) for etoricoxib compared with diclofenac. Rates of upper gastrointestinal clinical events (perforation, bleeding, obstruction, ulcer) were lower with etoricoxib than with diclofenac (0.67 vs 0.97 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.69 [0.57-0.83]), but the rates of complicated upper gastrointestinal events were similar for etoricoxib (0.30) and diclofenac (0.32). INTERPRETATION: Rates of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with arthritis on etoricoxib are similar to those in patients on diclofenac with long-term use of these drugs.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

A systematic review of NSAIDs withdrawn from the market due to hepatotoxicity: lessons learned from the bromfenac experience.

Drug-induced hepatotoxicity is the leading cause of acute liver failure (ALF) in the US and the most common adverse event causing drug non-approval and drug withdrawal by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Three different nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been withdrawn in the UK and/or the US due to hepatotoxicity (bromfenac, ibufenac, and benoxaprofen). A systematic review of clinical trials data for these drugs was performed in an effort to identify possible early signals that could have predicted post-marketing serious hepatoxicity. There were very limited published data on benoxaprofen and none on ibufenac or bromfenac. The publicly accessible archives of the FDA provided information on bromfenac. Flu-like symptoms associated with hepatic enzyme elevation and a case of possible drug-related hepatocellular jaundice may in retrospect have been signals for serious hepatotoxicity in the database of 1195 subjects reviewed by the FDA. Following approval, rates of acute liver failure for bromfenac were estimated to be in the range of 1:10 000. In addition, the safety databases of several drugs also accessed through FDA archives have been reviewed (simvastatin, tacrine, troglitazone, and ximelagatran). These data suggest that while ALT elevations alone do not reliably signal serious hepatotoxicity, elevated transaminases in association with symptomatic hepatitis or jaundice may be predictors of an increased risk of ALF. At present, however, pre-approval databases are generally not large enough to rule out low rates of serious hepatotoxicity. Therefore, it remains critical that clinicians report such cases to the FDA through the MEDWATCH system and that active post-marketing monitoring studies be used to identify potential rare cases of hepatotoxicity.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed2006

Clinical trial design and patient demographics of the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) study program: cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib versus diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently needed for the treatment of patients with arthritis. However, long-term use of such drugs that are cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors has been reported to increase cardiovascular risk as compared with placebo, whereas long-term, randomized controlled trials assessing the risk of traditional NSAIDs versus placebo are lacking. The MEDAL program is designed to provide a precise estimate of the relative cardiovascular event rates with the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib in comparison to the traditional NSAID diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The MEDAL program consists of 3 multinational, randomized, double-blind trials in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis comparing etoricoxib (60 or 90 mg daily) to diclofenac (150 mg daily). All investigator-reported thrombotic cardiovascular events will be adjudicated by an independent panel of experts blinded to treatment assignment. The primary analysis is a noninferiority comparison of etoricoxib versus diclofenac for confirmed thrombotic cardiovascular events, defined as an upper bound of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of < 1.30. With the planned 635 observed events from approximately 40,000 patient-years of exposure, using an estimated annual event rate of 1.30% in the control arm, the maximum annual event rate for etoricoxib that would meet the noninferiority criteria would be approximately 1.46%, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.12. A total of 34,701 patients have been enrolled in the MEDAL program. Roughly 13,000 and 10,000 patients will, respectively, have had > or = 18 or > or = 24 months of exposure, with maximum exposure of approximately 40 months. The MEDAL program will help to better define the risk-to-benefit ratio of 2 NSAIDs, that differ in their selectivity for COX-2, notably diclofenac and etoricoxib.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2006

Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events of low-dose aspirin and clopidogrel in randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review to define the relative and absolute risk of clinically relevant adverse events with the antiplatelet agents, aspirin and clopidogrel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of low-dose aspirin (75-325 mg/day) or clopidogrel administered for cardiovascular prophylaxis. Relative risks (RR) were determined by meta-analysis of 22 trials for aspirin versus placebo and from single studies for aspirin versus clopidogrel, aspirin versus aspirin/clopidogrel, and clopidogrel versus aspirin/clopidogrel. Absolute risk increase was calculated by multiplying RR increase by the pooled weighted incidence of the control. RESULTS: Aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding (RR=1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.08), major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (RR=2.07; 95% CI, 1.61-2.66), and intracranial bleeding (RR=1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-5.99) versus placebo. No difference between 75-162.5 mg/day and >162.5-325 mg/day aspirin versus placebo was seen. The absolute annual increases attributable to aspirin were major bleeding: 0.13% (95% CI, 0.08-0.20); major GI bleeding: 0.12% (95% CI, 0.07-0.19), intracranial bleeding: 0.03% (95% CI, 0.01-0.08). No study compared clopidogrel with placebo. One study showed increased major GI bleeding (but not non-GI bleeding endpoints) with aspirin versus clopidogrel (RR=1.45; 95% CI, 1.00-2.10). The absolute annual increase was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin increases the risk of major bleeding by approximately 70%, but the absolute increase is modest: 769 patients (95% CI, 500-1250) need to be treated with aspirin to cause one additional major bleeding episode annually. Compared with clopidogrel, aspirin increases the risk of GI bleeding but not other bleeding; however, 883 patients (95% CI, 357-infinity) would need to be treated with clopidogrel versus aspirin to prevent one major GI bleeding episode annually at a cost of over 1 million dollars.

Aspirin↗
PubMed2006

GI risk and risk factors of NSAIDs.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most widely used drugs in the United States. Ulcers are found at endoscopy in 15% to 30% of patients using NSAIDs regularly. The annual incidence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications such as bleeding with regular NSAID use is approximately 1.0% to 1.5%, whereas the annual rate of upper GI clinical events (complicated plus symptomatic uncomplicated ulcers) is approximately 2.5% to 4.5%. Upper GI symptoms such as dyspepsia also occur in many patients taking NSAIDs--at a relative risk of about 1.5 to 2 compared with that in patients without NSAID use. Important risk factors for upper GI clinical events include older age, prior history of upper GI events, use of corticosteroids or anticoagulants, and high-dose or multiple NSAIDs (including NSAID plus low-dose aspirin). Lower GI clinical events such as bleeding may also occur with NSAIDs, although they are less common and less well studied than upper GI events. The decision to employ a protective strategy to decrease NSAID-associated GI clinical events is based on risk stratification. Strategies employed include the use of non-NSAID analgesics, use of lowest effective dose of NSAID, use of medical cotherapy (eg, proton pump inhibitor, misoprostol), or use of coxibs.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2005

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hepatic toxicity: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in arthritis patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) might cause hepatic side effects, but the frequency of these laboratory and clinical side effects is uncertain. METHODS: Searches of bibliographic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE and of public archives of the Food and Drug Administration were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib, or meloxicam in adults with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis that provided information on aminotransferase elevations >3 x upper limit of normal, liver-related discontinuations, hepatic serious adverse events, liver-related hospitalizations, or liver-related deaths. The proportion of patients with each of the hepatic toxicity outcomes was calculated separately by using sample size weighted pooling for each NSAID. RESULTS: Sixty-seven articles from the bibliographic database and 65 studies from the Food and Drug Administration archives met inclusion criteria. Diclofenac (3.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.12%-4.03%) and rofecoxib (1.80%; 95% CI, 1.52%-2.13%) had higher rates of aminotransferase >3 x upper limit of normal than placebo (0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.51) and the other NSAIDs (all < or = 0.43%). The 95% CIs for liver-related discontinuations of all NSAIDs except diclofenac (2.17%; 95% CI, 1.78%-2.64%) overlapped with placebo. Only 1 liver-related hospitalization (among 37,671 patients) and 1 liver-related death (among 51,942 patients) occurred, with naproxen. CONCLUSIONS: Diclofenac and rofecoxib had higher rates of aminotransferase elevations than placebo and other NSAIDs studied. No NSAID studied had increased rates of liver-related serious adverse events, hospitalizations, or deaths.

Alanine Transaminase↗
PubMed2005

Early heartburn relief with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often taken for short-term treatment of heartburn. We performed a systematic review of the efficacy of PPIs for heartburn relief within the first 1-2 days of therapy. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched for clinical trials of PPIs in patients with heartburn that provided information about the proportion with heartburn relief at day 1-2. The sample size-weighted pooled proportions of patients with complete or sustained (7 consecutive days) relief were calculated. Meta-analyses of randomized comparisons of PPIs were also performed. RESULTS: Eighteen trials met inclusion criteria. At day 1 of PPI therapy, complete 24-hour, daytime, nighttime, and sustained heartburn relief occurred in 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.32), 0.49 (95% CI, 0.48-0.50), 0.55 (95% CI, 0.53-0.56), and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.20-0.22) of patients. Up to 37% of the heartburn relief achievable with 28 days of PPIs occurred on day 1. Placebo was significantly less effective than PPIs for 24-hour relief on day 1 (relative risk [RR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.58), and single-dose PPI therapy was less effective than double-dose therapy (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Complete heartburn relief for the entire day occurs in approximately 30% of patients after their first PPI dose and 9% of patients after their first placebo (RR for relief on day 1 for placebo versus PPI was 0.41 [95% CI, 0.28-0.58]). Although PPIs might provide benefit from the first day of therapy, most patients will not have symptom relief with 1 or 2 days of PPI therapy.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Randomized, double-blind comparison of immediate-release omeprazole oral suspension versus intravenous cimetidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that a new immediate-release omeprazole oral suspension is effective in preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. DESIGN: A noninferiority analysis was used to compare rates of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a prospective, phase 3, double-blind trial with parallel omeprazole suspension and cimetidine treatment groups. SETTING: A total of 47 intensive care units in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 359 critically ill patients who required mechanical ventilation for > or =48 hrs, had an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score of > or =11 at baseline, had an intact stomach with a nasogastric or orogastric tube in place, and had at least one additional risk factor for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to treatment with omeprazole suspension (two 40-mg doses on day 1, via orogastric or nasogastric tube, and 40 mg each day thereafter) or intravenous cimetidine (300-mg bolus and 50 mg/hr thereafter) for up to 14 days. Gastric aspirates were sampled for bleeding and pH. Medication doses were doubled for failure of pH control (two successive aspirates with pH < or = 4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding (bright red blood not clearing after 5-10 mins of lavage or persistent Gastroccult-positive "coffee-grounds" material for 8 hrs on days 1-2 or for 2-4 hrs on days 3-14 and not clearing with > or =100 mL of lavage) was the primary end point of the trial. The rate of clinically significant bleeding in the per-protocol population was 4.5% with omeprazole suspension and 6.8% with cimetidine, meeting the criteria for the noninferiority of omeprazole suspension. Median gastric pH was > or =6 on all trial days with omeprazole suspension treatment and on 50% of days with cimetidine treatment (p < .001, all trial days). In the omeprazole suspension group, median gastric pH was >4 on each trial day in 95% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate-release omeprazole suspension is effective in preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding and more effective than intravenous cimetidine in maintaining gastric pH of >4 in critically ill patients.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because symptoms alone do not identify pathophysiology or differentiate subgroups of constipation, diagnostic tests are generally recommended. However, their utility is not known. We performed a systematic review of diagnostic tests commonly used in constipation. METHODS: We searched the English literature using MEDLINE and PUBMED databases from 1966 to 2004 for studies in adults published as full manuscripts whose methodological quality was above a minimum score. RESULTS: No studies assessed the routine use of blood tests or abdominal x-ray. One retrospective endoscopic study showed that cancer and polyp detection rate was comparable to historical controls. Two studies of barium enema were unhelpful in diagnosis of constipation. Physiological studies showed differences in study population, methodology, and interpretation, and there was no gold standard. Ten colonic transit studies showed prevalence of 38-80% in support of slow transit constipation. Nine anorectal manometry studies showed prevalence of 20-75% for detecting dyssynergia. Nine studies of balloon expulsion showed impaired expulsion of 23-67%. Among 10 defecography studies, abnormalities were reported in 25-90% and dyssynergia in 13-37%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the use of blood tests, radiography, or endoscopy in the routine work up of patients with constipation without alarm features is lacking. Colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion tests reveal physiologic abnormalities in many selected patients with constipation, but no single test adequately defines pathophysiology. Large, well-designed, prospective studies are required to examine the utility of these tests.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Utilization of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antisecretory agents: a managed care claims analysis.

PURPOSE: To describe patients initiating nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy with regard to gastrointestinal and cardiac risks and patterns of antisecretory agent use, and to explore the relation between therapy type and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We studied patients aged 18 years or older who had continuous coverage from 1998 to 2001 and who had initiated treatment with cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs. Patients were categorized with respect to gastrointestinal and cardiac risk profiles. Proton pump inhibitor use within 15 days of initiating NSAID therapy was considered prophylactic. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate associations between treatment and hospitalization events, cardiac events, and health care costs. RESULTS: We identified 106,564 eligible NSAID initiators: 65.2% used COX-2 inhibitors and 34.8% used traditional NSAIDs. Users of COX-2 inhibitors were more likely to be at higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and cardiac events than were NSAID users. Proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis was most common among users of COX-2 inhibitors, but was only 11% in patients at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. There were no differences among treatment groups in terms of gastrointestinal or cardiac events. Initiation of COX-2 inhibitor therapy was associated with greater total health care costs. CONCLUSION: Although we found that COX-2 inhibitors were used more frequently than were traditional NSAIDs in certain groups of patients with varying cardiac or gastrointestinal risk, we did not find that their use resulted in reductions in clinical events, cotherapy with proton pump inhibitors, or costs, suggesting that a better understanding of the relation between NSAID treatment strategies and outcomes in patients with differing risk characteristics is needed.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2004

Ulcer formation with low-dose enteric-coated aspirin and the effect of COX-2 selective inhibition: a double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We assessed the risk of ulcers with low-dose aspirin and the interaction of low-dose aspirin with a COX-2 selective inhibitor in a double-blind trial that compared placebo, low-dose aspirin, rofecoxib + low-dose aspirin, and ibuprofen. METHODS: Osteoarthritis patients > or =50 years of age without ulcers or erosive esophagitis at baseline endoscopy were assigned randomly to placebo, enteric-coated aspirin 81 mg/day, rofecoxib 25 mg combined with aspirin 81 mg/day, or ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times a day. Repeat endoscopies were performed at 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The 12-week cumulative incidence of ulcers was placebo (N = 381) 5.8%, aspirin (N = 387) 7.3%, rofecoxib combined with aspirin (N = 377) 16.1%, and ibuprofen (N = 374) 17.1% (P < 0.001 for rofecoxib combined with aspirin and for ibuprofen vs. each of placebo and aspirin). Over 12 weeks, mean increases in the number of erosions were placebo 0.17, aspirin 0.85 (P = 0.002 vs. placebo), rofecoxib combined with aspirin 1.67, and ibuprofen 1.91 (both P < 0.001 vs. aspirin and placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin alone did not significantly increase ulcer incidence. Addition of a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitor to low-dose aspirin increased ulcer incidence, to a rate not significantly less than a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) alone. Determining the relative impact of COX-2 selective inhibitors and nonselective NSAIDs on gastrointestinal mucosal injury in low-dose aspirin users will require further study.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Proton pump inhibitor co-therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs--nice or necessary?

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for their anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-pyretic effects, whereas low-dose aspirin (also an NSAID) is used for cardiovascular prophylaxis. The main concern limiting use of these drugs is their gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. GI side effects include ulcers (found at endoscopy in 15%-30% of patients using NSAIDs regularly), complications such as upper GI bleeding (annual incidence of 1.0%-1.5%), and development of upper GI symptoms such as dyspepsia (occurring in up to 60% of patients taking NSAIDs). Histamine-2 receptor antagonists are not effective at preventing NSAID-induced gastric ulcers when used at standard doses, although they can decrease upper GI symptoms. Misoprostol effectively decreases NSAID-induced ulcers and GI complications but is used infrequently in the United States-perhaps because of issues of compliance (multiple daily doses) and side effects (eg, diarrhea, dyspepsia). Once-daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy also decreases the development of NSAID-associated ulcers and recurrent NSAID-related ulcer complications; it also decreases upper GI symptoms in NSAID users. In patients using aspirin, the addition of a cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor appears to significantly increase GI risk to the level of a nonselective NSAID; aspirin plus a nonselective NSAID appears to increase GI risk still higher. Patients taking low-dose aspirin who have risk factors for GI complications (including concomitant nonselective NSAID therapy) should receive medical co-therapy, such as a PPI.

Animals↗