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

Rheumatology Drug Updates: Celecoxib and Cardiovascular Safety Trial Results Reviewed

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BCGP  |  Issue: December 2016  |  December 13, 2016

Image Credit: ajt/shutterstock.com

Image Credit: ajt/shutterstock.com

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the question of cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs first came into the limelight.2 Valdecoxib (Bextra) was subsequently withdrawn from the market in April 2005 due to adverse cardiovascular effects and serious skin reactions.3 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed celecoxib to remain on the market, but mandated a cardiovascular safety trial.4,5 The results of this trial, Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen (PRECISION), were recently published.6

PRECISION Safety Trial

This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in 24,081 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, and with increased cardiovascular risk. Randomization was stratified by the patients’ primary diagnosis, aspirin use and geographic location. The trial goal was to assess the non-inferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Patients were treated with celecoxib (100 mg twice daily), ibuprofen (600 mg three times daily) or naproxen (375 mg twice daily) for a mean duration of 20.3±16 months, with a mean follow-up of 34.1±13.4 months. Investigators could increase the celecoxib dose to 200 mg twice daily, ibuprofen to 800 mg three times daily or naproxen to 500 mg twice daily, following the first visit. All participants were provided with esomeprazole 20–40 mg for gastric protection. Patients who were receiving low-dose aspirin (The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of an adverse event that met Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC) criteria. These criteria included death due to cardiovascular causes (including hemorrhage), nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke. A secondary composite outcome, major adverse cardiovascular events, included components of the primary outcome plus coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, or transient ischemic attack. Clinically significant gastrointestinal (GI) events were also secondary outcomes. Tertiary outcomes included iron-deficiency anemia (GI origin), clinically significant renal events, and heart failure or hypertension hospitalization. A non-adjudicated secondary outcome was arthritis pain intensity, which was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (scores range from 0 to 100 mm, higher scores equal worse pain). Non-inferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population.

The trial duration was 10 years, and 90% of the participants had osteoarthritis, while 10% had rheumatoid arthritis. During the trial, 69% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27% of patients discontinued follow-up.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Results

The primary outcome (APTC) occurred in 2.3% of celecoxib-treated patients (n=188), 2.5% of the naproxen-treated patients (n= 201) and 2.7% of the ibuprofen-treated patients (n=218). In the on-treatment population, the primary outcome (APTC) occurred in 1.7% of the celecoxib-treated patients (n=134), 1.8% of the naproxen-treated patients (n=144) and 1.9% of the ibuprofen-treated patients (n=155). Hazard ratios were: 0.90 for celecoxib vs. naproxen; 0.81 for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen (P

For pain assessment, a significant, but small, advantage was identified for naproxen vs. celecoxib or ibuprofen.

The event rate for the composite outcome of serious GI events was lower in the celecoxib group than in the naproxen-treated patients (0.71) or the ibuprofen-treated patients (0.65). Serious renal events occurred at a lower rate in celecoxib-treated patients than in ibuprofen-treated patients (HR, 0.61), but the rate did not significantly differ from naproxen-treated patients (HR, 0.79). Hypertension hospitalization was lower for celecoxib-treated patients than for ibuprofen-treated patients, but not for naproxen-treated patients. For pain assessment, a significant, but small, advantage was identified for naproxen vs. celecoxib or ibuprofen.

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:AnalgesicsDrug UpdatesResearch Rheum Tagged with:anti-inflammatorycardiovascularcelecoxib (Elyxyb)drugFDAmortalityNSAIDoutcomePrecision trialResearchrheumatologyriskSafety

Related Articles

    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…

    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 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…

    Ibuprofen More Likely to Raise BP than Naproxen or Celecoxib

    September 12, 2017

    NEW YORK (Reuters Health)—Ibuprofen boosts blood pressure (BP) more than naproxen or celecoxib in patients who take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat arthritis, according to a new substudy from the PRECISION trial. “These drugs are different with regard to BP, and ibuprofen is the worst,” Dr. Frank Ruschitzka of University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland,…

  • 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