Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Are NSAIDS Even Less Safe Than We Thought?

Mary Desmond Pinkowish  |  Issue: March 2011  |  March 18, 2011

He notes that “the stroke data are more interesting than the MI data, because it is usually not broken out this way, with stroke separate from MI. The drugs we thought were safe, like naproxen, begin to signal some adverse events.”

Dr. Abramson also points out that some assessment of overall risk of NSAIDs should account for gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. “I would like to see a table of rate ratios that included the analogous GI risks,” he says, adding that clinicians grapple with these issues when selecting a pain medication for individual patients.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

The absence of information about composite risk is frustrating, agrees Daniel Hal Solomon, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and member of the pharmacoepidemiology division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and a member of The Rheumatologist’s editorial board. “In their conclusion, [the investigators] mention the importance of weighing CV risk against GI risk, but then give absolutely no information about GI risk,” he says. “This doesn’t propel the doctor–​patient conversation in an important way.”

Putting the data in some kind of perspective is important, says John Cush, MD, professor of rheumatology and medicine at Baylor Research Institute in Dallas, Texas. “These are odds ratios of 1.3, 1.6—the worst are around 4.0. But what is event rate? Still incredibly low,” he says. “[Rheumatologists] are familiar with using drugs that have a risk, especially when the benefits outweigh the risk. We carefully select patients to use a particular drug and monitor for adverse effects.”

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

There is general agreement that pharmacologic pain treatment for musculoskeletal conditions is unsatisfactory. New drugs are needed, and most rheumatologists are increasingly aware of the need for nonpharmacologic interventions, especially weight loss in many patients with knee or hip OA.

“In clinical practice,” says Dr. Jüni, “one uses a stepwise approach and makes compromises.”

Mary Desmond Pinkowish is a medical journalist based in New York.

References

  1. Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Wandel S, et al. Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;342: c7086.
  2. Ray WA. Cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs. BMJ. 2011; 342:c6618.

 

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:AnalgesicsDrug Updates Tagged with:Cardiovascular diseaseDrugsNSAIDPainrheumatologiststroke

Related Articles
    A Comprehensive Review of NSAID Cardiovascular Toxicity

    A Comprehensive Review of NSAID Cardiovascular Toxicity

    July 18, 2018

    Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most used drugs for acute and chronic pain. More than 30 billion doses of NSAIDs are consumed annually from more than 70 million prescriptions.1 Despite their common use, NSAIDs are not free of serious toxicities. In the pre-Vioxx (rofecoxib) era, gastrointestinal toxicity was the primary concern for many NSAIDs….

    Celecoxib & Cardiovascular Death: NSAID Safety Under Review

    December 7, 2016

    A recent study showed that at moderate doses celecoxib may be noninferior with respect to cardiovascular safety compared with ibuprofen or naproxen…

    Rheumatology Drug Updates: Celecoxib and Cardiovascular Safety Trial Results Reviewed

    December 13, 2016

    Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used therapeutically since the 1960s.1 Evidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes led to the withdrawal of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib in September 2004, when the question of cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs first came into the limelight.2 Valdecoxib (Bextra) was subsequently withdrawn from the market in April 2005 due to…

    Celecoxib Is a Safe Treatment for Arthritis

    February 20, 2017

    A study compared celecoxib with ibuprofen and naproxen to determine its cardiovascular safety, as well as gastrointestinal and renal outcomes, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. The results showed that celecoxib met all prespecified noninferiority requirements and is as safe as other non-selective NSAIDs…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences