Rahme E, Bardou M, Dasgupta K, Toubouti Y, Ghosn J, Barkun A N
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Montreal General Hospital L10-408, 1650 Cedar Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3G 1A4, Canada.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Feb;46(2):265-72. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kel223. Epub 2006 Jul 13.
Many elderly patients are prescribed both low-dose aspirin (ASA), for cardiovascular protection and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for pain control. Compared with non-selective NSAIDs (NS-NSAIDs), celecoxib has a superior gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile in general. It is unclear, however, whether this fact holds good among patients taking ASA. We compared GI hospitalization rates among elderly patients taking celecoxib, NS-NSAIDs, celecoxib and ASA or NS-NSAIDs and ASA.
This was a retrospective cohort study using Quebec government databases. All patients 65 yrs of age or older who filled a prescription for celecoxib or an NS-NSAID between April 1999 and December 2002 were included. Cox regression models were used to compare the GI hospitalization rates between the four exposure categories adjusting for potential confounders.
A total of 332 491 patients were included. Among 1 522 307 celecoxib prescriptions, 430 214 were filled by patients concurrently receiving ASA (celecoxib and ASA); 195 369 of 863 646 NS-NSAID prescriptions were filled by patients receiving ASA (NS-NSAID and ASA). Celecoxib without ASA was less likely than NS-NSAID without ASA to be associated with GI hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.50]; celecoxib and ASA was also less likely to be associated with GI hospitalization than NS-NSAID and ASA (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.80); GI hospitalization rates were similar for celecoxib and ASA and NS-NSAID without ASA (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.25).
Among elderly patients receiving cardiovascular protection with ASA and pain control with anti-inflammatory drugs, celecoxib may be safer with regards to GI toxicity than NS-NSAIDs.
许多老年患者同时服用低剂量阿司匹林(ASA)以保护心血管,以及非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)以控制疼痛。与非选择性NSAIDs(NS-NSAIDs)相比,塞来昔布总体上具有更好的胃肠道(GI)安全性。然而,在服用ASA的患者中这一情况是否依然如此尚不清楚。我们比较了服用塞来昔布、NS-NSAIDs、塞来昔布与ASA或NS-NSAIDs与ASA的老年患者的胃肠道住院率。
这是一项使用魁北克政府数据库的回顾性队列研究。纳入了所有在1999年4月至2002年12月期间开具塞来昔布或NS-NSAIDs处方的65岁及以上患者。使用Cox回归模型比较四个暴露组之间的胃肠道住院率,并对潜在混杂因素进行校正。
共纳入332491例患者。在1522307张塞来昔布处方中,430214张由同时接受ASA的患者开具(塞来昔布与ASA);在863646张NS-NSAIDs处方中,195369张由接受ASA的患者开具(NS-NSAIDs与ASA)。未服用ASA的塞来昔布与未服用ASA的NS-NSAIDs相比,与胃肠道住院相关的可能性更小[风险比(HR)0.41,95%置信区间(CI)0.33 - 0.50];塞来昔布与ASA相比,与胃肠道住院相关的可能性也低于NS-NSAIDs与ASA(HR 0.62,95%CI 0.48 - 0.80);塞来昔布与ASA和未服用ASA的NS-NSAIDs的胃肠道住院率相似(HR 1.01,95%CI 0.81 - 1.25)。
在接受ASA进行心血管保护和使用抗炎药控制疼痛的老年患者中,就胃肠道毒性而言,塞来昔布可能比NS-NSAIDs更安全。