Garner S E, Fidan D D, Frankish R R, Judd M G, Towheed T E, Wells G, Tugwell P
Department of Community Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;2005(1):CD003685. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003685.pub2.
Editor's note: The anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market at the end of September 2004 after it was shown that long-term use (greater than 18 months) could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Further information is available at www.vioxx.com. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, in which the synovial lining of many joints and tendon sheaths are persistently inflamed.
To assess the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib for treating RA.
We searched the following electronic databases up to December 2000: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers were scanned for additional references. The manufacturers of rofecoxib, MSD, were also approached by the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence to submit additional evidence to inform it's appraisal on the use of cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors for arthritis.
We included randomised controlled trials of parallel group design evaluating the efficacy and/or toxicity of rofecoxib in RA, both placebo based and comparative trials were eligible. Relevant outcome criteria had to be available to evaluate efficacy and/or toxicity, such as the OMERACT outcomes.
Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and the results were compared for the degree of agreement. A validated tool (Jadad 1996) was used to score the quality of the randomised controlled trials. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate, continuous outcome measures using mean or standardized mean differences, and dichotomous outcome measures using relative risk ratios.
Two randomised controlled trials evaluating rofecoxib for the treatment of RA were identified and met the inclusion criteria. One compared rofecoxib to placebo and was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several doses of rofecoxib. The second trial compared rofecoxib to naproxen and was primarily designed to assess the safety of rofecoxib so did not include all the recommended RA efficacy measures. The overall number of ACR 20 responders who had received 25mg (82/ 171 = 48%) or 50mg (86/161 = 53%) was statistically significantly more than those receiving placebo (58/168 = 35% ) (RR 1.39 CI: 1.07, 1.80 and RR 1.55 CI: 1.20, 1.99 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the 25 and 50 mg doses. The safety profile of rofecoxib was similar to that of placebo. In the comparative trial, rofecoxib at a dosage of 50 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy to naproxen at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. However, the combined rate of clinically significant complicated gastro-intestinal events (GI) (perforations, ulcers, bleeds, or obstructions) was lower with rofecoxib than with naproxen (RR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63) due to a reduction in the number of ulcers and bleeds. Compared to patients taking naproxen, patients taking rofecoxib had a greater risk of having any cardiovascular event (45/4047 = 1.1% vs 19/4029 =0.47%) (RR 2.36 CI 1.38 to 4.02) and had greater risk of having a non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (18/4047 =0 .44% and 4/4029 =0.1%) (RR 4.48, 95% CI, 1.52 to 13.23).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, rofecoxib demonstrates a greater degree of efficacy than placebo, while having a comparable safety profile. Rofecoxib demonstrates a similar degree of efficacy as naproxen, but with a significantly lower rate of ulceration and gastrointestinal bleeding. Rofecoxib was associated with a greater risk for MI, but the exact significance and pathophysiology of this possible relationship is unclear. Rofecoxib was voluntarily withdrawn from global markets in October 2004. It cannot therefore be prescribed and therefore there are no implications for practice concerning its use. None the less when considering which NSAID to use, it must be borne in mind that the toxicity of NSAIDs is variable amongst patients and drugs and it tends to be dose related and associated with variation in the mode of action, absorption, distribution and metabolism. There remains a number of questions over both the benefits and risks associated with Cox II selective agents and further work is ongoing. It is likely that this issue will not be resolved until research has enabled a fuller understanding of the complex mechanism by which the Cox system operates.
编者注:抗炎药物罗非昔布(万络)于2004年9月底撤出市场,此前有研究表明长期使用(超过18个月)会增加心脏病发作和中风的风险。更多信息可在www.vioxx.com查询。类风湿性关节炎(RA)是一种全身性自身免疫性疾病,其中许多关节和腱鞘的滑膜衬里持续发炎。
评估罗非昔布治疗类风湿性关节炎的疗效和毒性。
截至2000年12月,我们检索了以下电子数据库:医学文献数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane对照试验注册库、国家研究注册库、英国国民健康服务体系经济评价数据库、卫生技术评估数据库。对检索到的论文的参考文献进行了扫描以获取更多参考文献。英国国家临床优化研究所还联系了罗非昔布的制造商默克公司,要求其提交更多证据,以协助该所评估环氧化酶抑制剂用于治疗关节炎的情况。
我们纳入了平行组设计的随机对照试验,这些试验评估了罗非昔布在类风湿性关节炎中的疗效和/或毒性,基于安慰剂的试验和对照试验均符合要求。必须有相关的结局标准来评估疗效和/或毒性,如美国风湿病学会(ACR)的结局标准。
由两名审阅者独立提取数据,并比较结果的一致程度。使用经过验证的工具(Jadad,1996年)对随机对照试验的质量进行评分。计划分析是在适当的情况下,使用均值或标准化均值差汇总连续结局指标,使用相对风险比汇总二分结局指标。
确定了两项评估罗非昔布治疗类风湿性关节炎的随机对照试验,均符合纳入标准。一项试验将罗非昔布与安慰剂进行比较,旨在评估几种剂量罗非昔布的安全性和疗效。第二项试验将罗非昔布与萘普生进行比较,主要旨在评估罗非昔布的安全性,因此未包括所有推荐的类风湿性关节炎疗效指标。接受25mg(82/171 = 48%)或50mg(86/161 = 53%)罗非昔布治疗的美国风湿病学会20改善标准(ACR 20)应答者总数在统计学上显著多于接受安慰剂治疗的患者(58/168 = 35%)(相对风险分别为1.39,95%置信区间:1.07,1.80;以及1.55,95%置信区间:1.20,1.99),25mg和50mg剂量之间无统计学显著差异。罗非昔布的安全性与安慰剂相似。在对照试验中,每日50mg剂量的罗非昔布与每日两次500mg剂量的萘普生疗效相似。然而,罗非昔布导致的具有临床意义的复杂胃肠道事件(GI)(穿孔、溃疡、出血或梗阻)的综合发生率低于萘普生(相对风险0.46,95%置信区间,0.34至0.63),原因是溃疡和出血的数量减少。与服用萘普生的患者相比,服用罗非昔布的患者发生任何心血管事件的风险更高(45/4047 = 1.1%对19/4029 = 0.47%)(相对风险2.36,95%置信区间1.38至4.02),发生非致命性心肌梗死(MI)的风险也更高(18/4047 = 0.44%和4/4029 = 0.1%)(相对风险4.48,95%置信区间,1.52至13.23)。
在类风湿性关节炎患者中,罗非昔布的疗效优于安慰剂,且安全性相当。罗非昔布与萘普生疗效相似,但溃疡和胃肠道出血发生率显著更低。罗非昔布与心肌梗死风险增加相关,但其确切意义和这种可能关系的病理生理学尚不清楚。罗非昔布于2004年10月自愿撤出全球市场。因此不能再开具其处方,所以其使用对临床实践没有影响。尽管如此,在考虑使用哪种非甾体抗炎药时,必须牢记非甾体抗炎药在患者和药物之间的毒性存在差异,并且往往与剂量相关,还与作用方式、吸收、分布和代谢的差异有关。关于环氧化酶-2(Cox II)选择性药物的益处和风险仍有许多问题,相关研究正在进行中。在对Cox系统运作的复杂机制有更全面的了解之前,这个问题可能无法得到解决。