Document1 1/9/00 4:56 PM Page 1

COX-2-selective NSAIDs:
New wonder drugs?

National Prescribing Service ACN 082 034 393

Level 1/ 31 Buckingham Street, Surry Hills 2010
Phone: 02 9699 4499 l Fax: 02 9699 5155 l email: info@nps.org.au
COX-2-selective NSAIDs:
New wonder drugs?

1. Introduction
Aspirin and other non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most widely used
classes of drugs, with both prescription and over the counter sales of the agents contributing to
total usage. NSAIDs are believed to act through inhibition of prostaglandin (PG) synthesis
secondary to their inhibition of the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX). This results in suppression of
inflammation, and effective analgesia. Most NSAIDs not only inhibit PGs at sites of inflammation,
but also PGs which serve important functions in other parts of the body, a factor which accounts
for some of the toxicity of these agents. The most frequent complications associated with NSAID
usage are those involving the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). GI bleeding, ulceration and perforation
are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who are treated with these agents.
A new approach to avoiding NSAID-induced complications became feasible with the discovery
that there are 2 isoforms of COX, COX-1 and COX-2. These enzymes are under distinct
regulatory control mechanisms. COX-1 is constitutively expressed in most tissues, and plays a
major role in normal functioning of the GIT, kidneys and platelets. In contrast, COX-2 is
expressed primarily in response to inflammation, but to some extent in other tissues including
kidneys and brain. Traditional NSAIDs are non-selective and inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2,
providing benefits in inflammation, but at the cost of potential adverse effects. Recently, two
COX-2-selective NSAIDs have been approved by the TGA, celecoxib (Celebrex®) and rofecoxib
(Vioxx®). Celecoxib, the first of these drugs to become available, is one of the best selling new
drugs to be marketed in the USA. It is likely that these agents will be covered by the PBS in the
year 2000. Both drugs are being aggressively marketed by the pharmaceutical industry, however
there is limited clinical experience, and monitoring adverse events in patients is a priority for
clinicians who prescribe these agents.
This document provides a review of the physiology and pharmacology of the COX system, and
published studies and clinical trials which have investigated the COX-2-selective NSAIDs.

2. Physiology and pharmacology of the COX

metabolites.
2.1 Biosynthesis of prostaglandins
The eicosanoids are autacoids (locally acting hormones) derived from arachidonic acid. They
comprise prostaglandins (PGs), thromboxanes (TXs) and leukotrienes (LTs). The PGs and TXs are
products of the cyclooxygenase (COX) pathway and are known as prostanoids. The leukotrienes
are byproducts of the 5-lipoxygenase pathway. Arachidonic acid is a component of cell
membranes, which is mainly released from membrane phospholipids by the enzyme phospholipase
A2. Many stimuli can liberate arachidonate, although this differs according to cell type. Examples
are thrombin in platelets, C5a in neutrophils and antigen-antibody reactions in mast cells. Cellular
damage, or influx of calcium into most cells will also activate phospholipases. Liberation of free
arachidonate is the rate determining step in the synthesis of PGs, TXs and LTs.
COX or prostaglandin H2 synthase catalyses the first two steps in the biosynthesis of the PGs from
the substrate arachidonic acid. These are the oxidation and cyclisation of the unesterified
arachidonic acid to the hydroperoxy endoperoxide PGG2, followed by its subsequent reduction to
PGH2.1 PGH2 in turn serves as a substrate for cell specific isomerases which produce a variety of
biologically active products (See Figure 1)
Figure 1. Synthesis of the clinically relevant prostaglandins and thromboxanes from
arachidonic acid.
The half-lives of most PGs in the serum are less than one minute. High concentrations of PG-
inactivating enzymes are present in the lung, and 95% of PGE2 and PGF2 are inactivated on first
passage. PGI2 (Prostacyclin) is not taken up into the lung, but is hydrolysed nonenzymatically (t1/2
=3 minutes) to the inactive 6-keto-PGF1. TXA2 (Thromboxane A2) has a half-life of 30 seconds,
and breaks down nonenzymatically into the stable but inactive TXB2.2
In healthy individuals, PG mediate a range of normal biological functions including gastric
protection, renal homeostasis, vascular homeostasis, uterine function, embryo implantation and
labour, regulation of the sleep wake cycle, body temperature and inflammation (Table 1).
Although most tissues are able to synthesise the intermediate PGH2 from free arachidonic acid, the
biologically active PGs synthesised varies in each tissue and depends on the complement of
enzymes that are present and their relative abundance. For example, lung and spleen are able to
synthesise a whole range of biologically active prostanoids, but the principal enzyme metabolising
PGH2 in platelets is thromboxane synthetase, while endothelial cells contain primarily prostacyclin
synthase.2, 3
Prostanoid receptors are all G-protein linked, and their stimulation activates distinct cell-signalling
pathways.3 Five main prostanoid receptors have been defined and cloned. These have been termed
DP-, FP-, EP- TP- and IP-receptors and are the ligands for the natural prostenoids PGD2, PGF2,
PGE2, TXA2 and PGI2 respectively. EP-receptors can be divided into four subtypes, EP1 to EP4.4
 Table 1. Physiologic Functions of Prostaglandins
(From Kaplan-Machlis et al, 19995).
Physiologic Function Prostaglandin(s) Involved
Relax vascular smooth muscle PGE2, PGF2, PGI2
Promote platelet aggregation TXA2
Inhibit platelet aggregation PGI2
Relax bronchial smooth muscle PGE2, PGI2
Contract bronchial smooth muscle PGF2
Increase renal blood flow PGE2, PGI2
Protect gastric mucosa PGE2, PGI2
Contract uterine smooth muscle PGE2, PGF2
Relax uterine smooth muscle PGI2
Regulation of the sleep/wake cycle PGD2

2.2 Comparisons between COX-1 and COX-2

2.2.1 COX regulation and biology
In 1990 it was reported that stimulation of human monocytes with lipopolysaccharide (LPS)
resulted in a substantial increase in the activity of COX, but did not change the activities of
phospholipase or 5-lipoxygenase.6 It was also observed that dexamethasone could inhibit LPS-
induced increases in COX activity of macrophages, but did not affect basal production of
prostaglandins.7 These results led the investigators to postulate the existence of an ‘inducible’
form of COX which could be upregulated by inflammatory stimuli such as cytokines. This
inducible enzyme (COX-2) was cloned in 1991.
COX-1 is the constitutive form of the enzyme which is expressed in nearly all cell types
throughout the body at a constant level. It’s expression can increase 2- to 4- fold under
stimulatory conditions and it is not appreciably affected by glucocorticoids. In contrast, COX-2
is an immediate early gene product. It’s expression is rapidly upregulated by a variety of
inflammatory stimuli including proinflammatory cytokines (eg. interleukin (IL)-1, IL-2 and
tumour necrosis factor- (TNF-)) bacterial lipopolysaccharide, mitogens and reactive oxygen
intermediates. These stimuli can upregulate COX-2 in macrophages, monocytes, synoviocytes,
chondrocytes, fibroblasts and endothelial cells 10- to 80- fold.8-10 COX-2 is not commonly
found in differentiated cells under normal physiological conditions, but it has been
constitutively found in the kidney,11 vasculature,12 brain,13, 14 ovary, uterus (associated with
embryo implantation), cartilage and bone.15

2.3 Basis of inhibitor selectivity

Differences between COX-1 and COX-2 are summarised in table 2. Although the genes of both
isoforms are different, COX-1 and COX-2 have similar structures and catalytic activities. The
amino acid sequences for the substrate binding and catalytic sites are almost identical, but
COX-2 has valine substituted for isoleucine at positions 434 and 523.16, 17 Valine is smaller than
isoleucine by a methyl group. These substitutions result in a larger and more flexible substrate
channel and a secondary internal pocket off the inhibitor binding site of COX-2 which is not
observed in COX-1. COX-2 selective inhibitors have structures which occupy this additional
pocket (See Figure 2).
Figure 2. A single amino acid substitution is responsible for inhibitor selectivity.
Larger COX inhibitors cannot occupy the active site of COX-1 since the internal side
pocket is not present. (Figure reprinted with permission from Hawkey, C. J. 1999.
COX-2 inhibitors. The Lancet. 353: 307-14.18 © The Lancet Ltd.)
 Table 2. Summary of the structure, distribution and regulation of
COX-1 and COX-2 (From Brooks, P. 199919).
COX-1 COX-2
cDNA Chromosome 9; 22kB Chromosome 1; 8.3kB
mRNA 2.8kB 4.5kB
Protein 72kDa; 599 amino acids 72kDa; 604 amino acids
Amino acids: 90% between species for both isoforms;
similar Vmax and Km values for arachidonic acid
Differences Glucocorticoids inhibit expression of COX-2, not COX-1;
the active site of COX-2 is larger than that of COX-1
Regulation Predominantly constitutive. Predominantly inducible
Increased 2- to 4-fold (10- to 20-fold).
by inflammatory stimuli Constitutive in certain tissues
Tissue Expression Most tissues, Induced by inflammatory stimuli
but particularly platelets, and mitogens in macrophages/
stomach, kidney monocytes, synoviocyes. chondrocytes,
fibroblasts, endothelial cells. Induced
by hormones in the ovaries and foetal
membranes. Constitutive expression
in the CNS, kidney, testes, tracheal
epithelial cells.

2.4 Non-selective COX inhibitors

NSAIDs are believed to exert their antiinflammatory actions through the inhibition of PG
synthesis by blocking COX.20, 21 The predominant effect of these drugs is in the periphery, but
the antipyretic effects are mediated by inhibition of PG synthesis in the central nervous system.
Aspirin covalently modifies both COX-1 and COX-2 by acetylation of a distinct serine residue
within the active site of the enzyme. This results in an irreversible inhibition of COX activity.
This is an important distinction for aspirin compared to other NSAIDs, since the duration of
activity of aspirin relates to the turnover rate of COX in target tissues.
Traditional NSAIDs are weak organic acids (see Table 3) which serve as reversible inhibitors of
COX activity. Some non-selective NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and mefenamic acid are purely
competitive COX inhibitors. Others including naproxen and indomethacin have a more
complex mechanism of inhibition; they bind very tightly to COX and can be classified as time-
dependent inhibitors.

2.5 COX-2-selective NSAIDs

Two COX-2-selective NSAIDs are currently available to clinicians in Australia. Celecoxib
(Celebrex®, (Searle)) has been approved for use in Australia for the management of pain
associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. Rofecoxib (Vioxx®,
(Merck)) has been approved for the treatment of OA. A third agent, meloxicam (Boehringher
Ingelheim) has been released in Europe, and may be licensed in Australia at some future date.
The indications and recommended dosages for celecoxib and rofecoxib are show in Table 4.
COX-2-selective NSAIDs exhibit time-dependent inhibition of COX-2.
 Table 3. Chemical classification of NSAIDs available in Australia

Chemical Class Generic Name Proprietary Products Available

Salicylic acid derivatives Aspirin* Ecotrin®
Diflunisal Dolobid
Indole acetic acids Indomethacin Arthrexin®, Hicin®, Indocid®, Indomed®

Sulindac Aclin®, Clinoril®, Saldac®

Heteroaryl acetic acids Diclofenac Diclohexal®, Fenac®, Voltaren®,
Voltaren Rapid®, Dinac®, Diclohexal®,
Arthrotec 50® (Diclofenac
50mg+misoprostil 200microg).

Ketorolac Toradol®
Propionic acid derivatives Ibuprofen ACT-3®, Actiprofen®, Brufen®,
Nurofen® Rafen®

Ketoprofen Orudis®, Orudis SR®, Oruvail SR®

Naproxen/ Anaprox®, Inza®, Naprogesic®,

Crysanal®,

Napoxen sodium Naprosyn®, Naprosyn SR®, Proxen SR®

Tiaprofenic acid Surgam®, Tiafen®

Anthranilic acids (Fenamates) Mefenamic acid Mefic®, Ponstan®

Enolic acids Oxicams Piroxicam Candyl®, Candyl-D®, Feldene®,

Feldene-D®, Moblis®, Moblis-D®
Pirohexal-D®, Pirox®, Rosig®, Rosig-D®

Tenoxicam Tilcotil®

Pyrazolidinediones Phenylbutazone Butazolidin®

* low dose analgesic, antipyretic and antiplatelet preparations of aspirin have been excluded from this list.

Table 4. Specific COX-2-selective NSAIDs available in Australia

Generic Name Proprietary Products Available TGA approved indications and

recommended dosages
Celecoxib Celebrex® Rheumatoid arthritis, 100-200mg twice
daily Osteoarthritis, 200mg once daily or
100mg twice daily. Maximum: 200mg
twice daily
Rofecoxib Vioxx® Osteoarthritis, Initially 12.5mg once daily,
may be increased if necessary to 25mg
once daily
2.6 Assessment of COX-2 specificity
A number of disparate methods have been used to assess the potency of inhibitors against
COX-1 and COX-2. These assays have utilised COX derived from different species and tissues,
and as such the results for individual compounds can vary widely.19 At the International
Consensus Meeting on the Mode of Action of COX-2 Inhibition, it was proposed that the
human whole blood assay (WBA)22 should be adopted as the standard method for assessing
differential inhibition of COX isoforms.19 The human whole blood assay has a number of
advantages, including the ability to make assessments of inhibitor activity when a drug is taken
by a patient before blood collection, or when the inhibitor is added to the blood after sample
collection. In the former case, biologically active metabolites can also be assessed.
For assessment of COX-1 activity in this assay, blood is allowed to clot for one hour at 37°C in
the presence or absence of inhibitor, and then the serum is assayed for TXB2. Since TXB2 is
predominantly derived from platelets in this system, and platelets cannot synthesise COX-2 (See
Blood Clotting below), serum TXB2 levels reflect platelet COX-1 activity. For assessment of
activity against COX-2, blood is collected in heparinised tubes and incubated for 24hrs at 37°C
in the presence or absence of inhibitor, together with LPS. LPS results in PGE2 production by
circulating monocytes as a consequence of inducing COX-2, so after 24hrs, serum is assayed for
PGE2.22
Enzyme inhibitors are usually described according to their efficiency in inhibiting enzyme
activity. The most common variable is the IC50 (concentration of inhibitor which results in a
50% reduction in COX activity). A low IC50 indicates a drug is more potent than one with a
high IC50. For COX, the results of inhibitor assays are commonly expressed as a ratio of IC50
for COX-2/COX-1. A smaller value therefore implies a greater selectivity of an agent for COX-
2.
Recently, a number of modifications have been made to the COX-2 component of the WBA.
This modified assay is the William Harvey Human Modified Whole Blood Assay (WHMA).23
The changes were made in an attempt to compensate for the longer incubation times in the
COX-2 component of the WBA (24hrs) compared to the COX-1 component (1hr), since it is
now obvious that the potency of inhibitors for prostanoid formation is dependent upon the
supply of arachidonate both in vivo and in vitro.24, 25 In addition, the investigators who
developed this assay expressed their results as the ratio of IC80, since steady state plasma
concentrations of many NSAIDs, aspirin and meloxicam produce approximately 80%
inhibition of both COX-1 and COX-2 in this assay system 23 (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Selectivity of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs given as log inhibitory
concentration (IC80) ratio. The ‘0 line’ indicates equipotency (i.e. an IC80 ratio of 1).
(Figure reprinted with permission, from Brooks, P.M. COX-2 inhibitors. Australian
Prescriber 2000. 23:30-2. See http://www.australianprescriber.com )

Although these data may be used to suggest advantages of one drug over another. their
significance is not clear. For example, the results are based on concentrations of drug in plasma,
which may not reflect the steady state concentration in the synovial fluid. Furthermore, if these
log IC80 ratios of traditional and widely utilised non-selective NSAIDs are compared with the
risk of serious GI toxicity of these agents as determined by a large meta-analysis,26 there is a
correlation, but it is not strong. This suggests that the clinical significance of these data for
predicting adverse GI events is of uncertain importance, and the safety profile of one drug over
another will only be determined by wide use in a clinical setting.
2.7 Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disorder characterised by a
deforming polyarthritis and a spectrum of extra-articular manifestations. Therapy with disease-
modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is instituted to alter the progress of the disease and
therefore prevent joint deformity and disability. NSAIDs are primarily used in RA for the relief
of pain and inflammation, but do not modify the natural history of RA. Any NSAID may be
used, usually chronically and at the higher end of the dose range. Paracetamol can also be
useful in RA, sometimes allowing use of a reduced dosage of NSAID.27
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease affecting the weight-bearing joints and peripheral and axial
articulations. One of the hallmarks of the disease is the progressive degeneration of cartilage
resulting in pain and restricted motion. It is classified as a non-inflammatory arthropathy, but
there may be inflammatory components. Treatment in OA is aimed at pain relief. The first line
treatment is paracetamol in adequate dosage (maximum 4g/day) on an occasional or regular
basis according to symptoms. If this does not control symptoms adequately, a low-dose NSAID
can be added, and dosage increased only if response is unsatisfactory. NSAIDs can also be used
intermittently during flares of OA pain.27

2.7.1 COX-2 in RA and OA

2.7.1.1 Studies in experimental animals
The role of COX-2 has been studied in animal models of inflammatory arthropathies. COX-2
but not COX-1 is induced in the synovial tissues of rats with adjuvant arthritis (a model of
rheumatoid arthritis).28 In this model, a COX-2-selective inhibitor (SC-58125) reduced paw
oedema and decreased PGE2 concentrations in the paw to baseline levels with an efficacy
indistinguishable from indomethacin.

2.7.1.2 Studies in humans

COX-2 is also induced in humans with RA and OA. Using immunohistochemistry with a
specific antibody directed against COX-2, Crofford et al demonstrated that COX-2 is present in
vivo in synovial tissues from patients with RA.29 Siegle et al studied the expression of COX-1
and COX-2 in patients with inflammatory arthropathies (RA, ankylosing spondylitis, or
psoriatic arthritis) and in patients with OA. Using both immunohistochemistry with image
analysis and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), expression of COX-2
protein and mRNA respectively were significantly higher in inflammatory arthropathies
compared to OA.30 The upregulated COX-2 expression in inflammatory arthropathies in this
latter study is consistent with a recent study which reported significantly higher concentrations
of PGE2 in the synovia of patients with RA compared to those with OA.31
Despite low levels of COX-2 expression in the synovium of patients with OA, cartilage may be
a significant source of COX-2 and PGs in these patients. A recent study employing explant
cultures of cartilage from OA-affected patients reported upregulation of COX-2 mRNA and
protein which coincided with superinduction of PGE2.32

3. Physiological and pathophysiological roles of

prostanoids/adverse effects of NSAIDs
The main adverse effects of the non-selective NSAIDs involve the GI tract, the kidney and blood
clotting. Since PGs mediate a variety of physiological functions, inhibiting their production
likely accounts for some of the adverse events associated with NSAID therapy. It is largely the
inhibition of COX-1 which is believed to contribute the adverse effect profile of the NSAIDs as
a class. However, some effects of individual NSAIDs may be unrelated to COX inhibition. For
example, aplastic anaemia has been reported following phenylbutazone treatment, and
tiaprofenic acid can cause cystitis. It has been hypothesised that specific COX-2-selective
NSAIDs will have a superior adverse effect profile compared to the non-selective inhibitors
(particularly GI side effects), but it is possible that the COX-2-selective NSAIDs will cause
unwanted effects independent of their selective actions on COX-2.
Drug adverse effects can be classified as being type A or type B reactions. Type A reactions are
common reactions which are dose-dependent and in line with the pharmacology of the drug.
Type B reactions are idiosyncratic, rare and more likely to be serious. Most clinical trials are
powered to detect drug efficacy, not safety. Therefore, although type A reactions will often
emerge in the clinical trial process, this is not always the case. For example, it was some years
after marketing that the ACE inhibitor cough emerged as one of the most common adverse
effects of this class of drug. Since type B reactions are infrequent, they are rarely detected by
clinical trials. These reactions emerge as a consequence of vigilant reporting of adverse
reactions.
This section reviews some of the physiological roles of COX and PGs, in addition to describing
some of the adverse effects commonly associated with COX inhibition by non-selective
NSAIDs. The adverse effects of the COX-2-selective NSAIDs which have emerged in clinical
trials are discussed below in section 5.2.

3.1 Inflammatory and immune responses

PGs are released by a large variety of mechanical, thermal, chemical and microbiological
insults, and they contribute significantly to the signs and symptoms of inflammation.33 In areas
of acute inflammation, PGE2 and PGI2 are generated by local tissues and blood vessels, while
mast cells release PGD2. Monocyte-lineage cells (macrophages) can release PGE2 and TXA2.
PGs, in particular PGE2 are major mediators of the inflammatory response. PGEs and PGE2 in
particular, modulate the oedema and pain which constitute the classical signs of inflammation.
PGEs do not directly increase vascular permeability, but can increase plasma exudation induced
by other mediators such as C5a.34 PGEs can also increase blood flow to inflamed areas thereby
enhancing leukocyte infiltration and contributing to the development of oedema.2
PGE2 also lowers nociceptive thresholds, sensitising peripheral sensory nerve endings and
thereby potentiating the effects of nociceptive agents such as bradykinin and histamine. In
addition, COX products are thought to act in the spinal cord to facilitate the transimission of
pain responses.35 PGE2 is also a pyretic agent and contributes to fever associated with
infections.36
Inhibition of the synthesis of PGs is believed to account for the clinical efficacy of the NSAIDs.
It is important to remember that the inflammatory process is a defence mechanism to protect
the body from noxious stimuli. It is only when the inflammatory response is not appropriately
limited and continues unnecessarily that COX-2 activity becomes detrimental.

3.2 The GI tract

3.2.1 PG’s and their role in gastric protection
Cytoprotective PGs in the stomach are thought to be synthesised primarily by COX-1 which is
widely distributed throughout the GIT. Basal expression of COX-2 mRNA and protein can also
be detected in the GI mucosa.37 In the stomach, PGE2 and PGI2 inhibit gastric acid secretion
stimulated by feeding, histamine or gastrin. Volume, acidity and pepsin content of secretion are
all reduced. Both PGE2 and PGI2 are vasodilators in the GI mucosa, and PGI2 may be directly
involved in the regulation of blood flow. Mucous secretion in the stomach and small intestine is
increased by PGEs. These effects help to maintain the integrity of the GI mucosa.2 In addition,
PGEs and their analogues inhibit gastric damage caused by a variety of ulcerogenic agents and
promote healing of duodenal and gastric ulcers.38

3.2.2 Incidence and awareness of adverse GI effects after NSAID therapy

The most common adverse events associated with NSAID therapy involve the GI tract.39 There
is a major risk of GI disturbances, perforation, ulcers and bleeding associated with NSAID
usage which represents a significant socioeconomic burden. The risk of an adverse GI event
increases linearly with age 40, and remains constant over time.41, 42 Other risk factors for GI
damage are higher doses of NSAIDs (including the use of two or more NSAIDs), a history of
gastroduodenal ulcer or gastrointestinal bleeding, concomitant use of corticosteroids, serious
coexisting conditions, and concomitant use of anticoagulants.40
Within a six month period of treatment, between 5 and 15% of patients can be expected to
discontinue therapy because of dyspepsia 43, and it has been estimated that approximately 0.4-
2% of patients who take an NSAID for a year are at risk of developing a serious ulcer
complication.38, 39 The mortality rate amongst patients who are hospitalised for NSAID-induced
upper GI bleeding is approximately 10%. In the USA, the number of deaths per year attributed
to NSAID gastropathy is estimated to be 7600 and the number of hospitalisations is
76000/year.39 In the UK, it has been estimated that 12 000 ulcer complications and 1200
deaths/year are attributable to NSAID usage.44 There are no recent figures which document the
incidence of serious NSAID-induced GI complications in Australia, although it has been
estimated that in 1988 there were approximately 1200 hospital admissions for ulcer
complications attributable to NSAID usage, in people aged 65 years and over.45
Surveys in Australia in the late 1980s showed that approximately 20% of the elderly
population were taking NSAIDs, and that 43% of community use of NSAIDs was in patients
over 60 years of age.45, 46 Since this time there has been a significant reduction in prescription
sales of NSAIDs in Australia (Figure 4a) as a consequence of educational and regulatory
interventions.45 In 1996 Henry and coworkers published a meta-analysis of clinical trials which
highlighted differences in GI risk associated with specific NSAIDs.26 This study reported the
lowest pooled risk was associated with diclofenac and ibuprofen at doses of less than
1600mg/day. The highest pooled relative risk was with piroxicam and ketoprofen (See Figure
5). It is important to note that the relative risk for ibuprofen increases at doses greater than
1600mg/day, and for all NSAIDs, the antiinflammatory effects and the incidence of adverse
effects are both dose related.47

Figure 4. a) Graph showing the declining number of NSAID prescriptions dispensed

from June 89 to June 99. b) Graph showing NSAID usage stratified by GI Risk for the
corresponding period.
Figure 4b.

Figure 5. Graph showing comparison by meta-analysis of the pooled relative risk

(±95% confidence intervals) of serious upper GI complications from exposure to
individual NSAIDs compared with exposure to ibuprofen. Risk was not established for
diflunisal due to an insufficient number of studies) and tenoxicam or tiaprofenic acid
due to unavailability of comparative data.
The National Prescribing Service (NPS) conducted an educational campaign early in 1999 to
alert to differences in relative risk associated with NSAIDs. Although statistics for the latter half
of 1999 are not yet available, data obtained from the PBS show that in the first half of 1999,
prescribing of longer acting (higher risk) agents fell. There has been a corresponding increase in
the number of prescriptions of shorter acting (lower risk) agents (Figure 4b).
Although prescribers are generally aware of the potential for adverse effects with NSAID
therapy, public perceptions and understanding about side effects and drug usage may not
always reflect that of health care professionals. For example, a recent survey of 4799 people
conducted in the USA reported that 45% of the group took NSAIDs for five or more
consecutive days/month, and 40% of these took both OTC and prescribed NSAIDs. Many of
the group were unaware or unconcerned about the possibility of adverse GI effects, and
incorrectly believed that warning signs would precede a serious GI episode.42 There are
currently no data available on OTC consumption of naproxen sodium, ibuprofen, mefenamic
acid, topical diclofenac or aspirin in Australia.

3.2.3 Pathogenesis of mucosal injury

Gastroduodenal mucosal injury develops when the normal defensive properties of the mucosa
are overwhelmed by gastric acid. NSAIDs contribute to mucosal injury by two independent
mechanisms: 1) a topical effect related to the physico-chemical properties of NSAIDs themselves
48
and 2) a systemic effect through decreased mucosal PG synthesis.49 The vast majority of
NSAIDs are weak organic acids. In the stomach, they remain in unionised form and can freely
diffuse across the membrane of mucosal cells. Once inside the neutral cytoplasm, the drug
ionises resulting in trapping of hydrogen ions within the cell.50
Systemic inhibition of PG synthesis impairs mucosal repair and microvascular blood flow, and
also results in inhibition of hepatocyte growth factor production which may delay healing of
mucosal ulcers.51 Indeed, the systemic effects of these agents appear to have the predominant
role in ulcer development, even though superficial mucosal injury may be reduced. In support of
this, the use of enteric coated aspirin preparations and parenteral or rectal administration of
NSAIDs have failed to prevent the development of ulcers.46, 52, 53

3.2.4 Clinical spectrum of injury

The spectrum of NSAID-related gastroduodenal injury includes a combination of subepithelial
haemorrhages, erosions, and ulcerations that is often referred to as NSAID gastropathy. The
distinction between erosions and ulcerations depends on pathological definitions: erosions are
defined as lesions confined to the mucosa, and ulcers are defined as lesions that penetrate the
muscolaris mucosae into the submucosa. An ulcer can cause haemorrhages when it erodes into
the arteries below the mucosa. In practice, an endoscopic definition is used, which is based on a
subjective assessment of the size, shape, and depth of the lesion. The likelihood of a lesion
being an ulcer increases with lesion size. Erosions are likely to be small and superficial, whereas
ulcers tend to be at least 5 mm in diameter with apparent depth.54 Although some studies have
defined ulcers as a mucosal break of ≥ 3mm in diameter, Graham in an editorial in
Gastroenterology makes the point that ‘a 5mm lesion provides a more acceptable standard for a
potentially serious lesion, and results of any study that provide data about 3mm ‘ulcers’ should
be viewed with caution.’55

3.2.5 COX-2 in the GI tract

Helicobacter pylori infection can also lead to ulcers which are often accompanied by a wide
field of non-erosive inflammatory gastritis. H. pylori infection is more common in elderly
patients, as is NSAID use.56 The relationships between NSAID use, H. pylori infection and
gastric damage are not well understood. NSAID usage does not increase susceptibility to H.
pylori infection but whether a mucosa which has been damaged by H. pylori infection is more
susceptible to the toxic effects of NSAIDs is unclear. Eradication of H. pylori before starting
NSAID therapy reduces the occurrence of gastroduodenal ulcers in patients who have not
previously taken NSAIDs.57 However, another study investigating the effects of H. pylori
eradication in patients with current or previous NSAID-induced ulcers or dyspepsia who
continued to use NSAIDs found that H. pylori eradication did not alter the outcome in terms of
ulcer recurrence or dyspepsia.58
COX-2 is induced by gastric injury, and gastritis caused by H. pylori is associated with COX-2
expression not only in mononuclear cells, but also parietal cells and gastric epithelium.59, 60
Eradication of H. pylori leads to reduced expression of COX-2 in the gastric epithelium, but
levels remain elevated and are strongly correlated with the severity of chronic inflammatory cell
infiltrate.60 The relationship of COX-2 induction in the gut secondary to H. pylori infection
needs further exploration. It was initially hypothesised that COX-2 may play a role in the
immune response against H. pylori since COX-2 is expressed around the rim of the ulcer, and
in animal studies, COX-2 inhibition retarded ulcer healing.61 Recent studies have highlighted
the importance of both COX isoforms in the formation of new capillary blood vessels
(angiogenesis).62 Angiogenesis is essential for wound and ulcer healing, and also for the growth
and metastasis of solid tumours. This action of COX-2-selective NSAIDs accounts for their
activity in the prevention of colon and other cancers.63-67 However it also suggests these agents
should be used with caution in patients with active GI ulcers.

3.3 The kidney

Adverse renal effects occur in approximately 5% of patients who are taking NSAIDs, and
advanced age is a primary risk factor in these individuals. PG’s synthesised by the kidneys affect
haemodynamics and sodium and water metabolism. PGI2, PGE2 and PGD2 dilate the glomerular
arterioles and enhance renal perfusion.68 PGE2 and PGF2 have diuretic and natriuretic effects
since they inhibit sodium reabsorption at the thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle.69
Despite these many actions, PGs modulate but do not maintain normal renal blood flow in
healthy individuals.
However, PG production becomes important in maintaining blood flow and glomerular
filtration in the compromised kidney.70, 71 This is particularly important in patients with
congestive heart failure, liver cirrhosis, compromised renal function or when diuretics are
administered concomitantly (hypovolaemic subjects).72-74 In individuals with these clinical
conditions, renal function is highly dependent upon local production of PGE2 within the kidney
to offset the vasoconstrictor effects of high concentrations of angiotensin, vasopressin and
catecholamines that result from the activation of pressor reflexes. Inhibition of PG synthesis by
NSAIDs in these patients can lead to sodium and water retention and weight gain, and can also
precipitate acute renal failure when reduced PG synthesis leads to unopposed vasoconstriction.2,
73
Renin release is also partially controlled by PGI268 and inhibition of PG synthesis by NSAIDs
can occasionally affect the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system leading to a reduction in
aldosterone secretion. In patients with renal impairment, especially those treated with agents
that increase serum potassium levels (for example, potassium sparing diuretics, potassium
supplements, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists), this can lead to
hyperkalaemia.73, 75

3.3.1 COX-2 expression in the kidney

The role of COX-2 in generating PGs in the kidney is complex and still being defined. In the
adult human kidney, constitutive expression of COX-2 protein and mRNA is detectable in
endothelial and smooth muscle cells of arteries and veins and intraglomerularly in podocytes.11
Studies in the rat have demonstrated that high levels of COX-2 can be induced in the kidney in
response to appropriate stimuli. Salt restriction alters the intra-renal distribution of COX-2 and
dramatically upregulates its expression in the macula densa and surrounding cortical thick
ascending limb.76 There may also be important feedback loops between the renin-angiotensin
system and renal expression of COX-2. For example, administration of a selective COX-2
inhibitor blocked increases in renal renin production in response to a low-salt diet or after
administration of ACE inhibitors,77, 78 and administration of ACE inhibitors led to increased
COX-2 expression in the macula densa of rats on control or low sodium diets.78
In a study assessing the influence of COX inhibition on renal function in young, healthy and
salt-depleted males, celecoxib was found to cause Na+ and K+ retention. These are early clinical
features of renal dysfunction induced by NSAIDs in hypovolaemic patients. Conversely
rofecoxib had minimal effects on renal function in healthy, elderly patients with normal renal
function (defined as creatinine clearance > 50mL/min or serum creatinine < 2mg/dL) and a high
intake of dietary sodium (200mEq/day). These data support the findings in animals which
suggest that COX-2 expression may be important in the physiological response to a low sodium
diet.
An important role of COX-2 in kidney function and development is suggested by studies
utilising COX knockout mice. COX-2 homozygous knockout (-/-) mice show severe renal
pathology which progressively deteriorates with age 79, 80, but the kidneys of COX-1
homozygous (-/-) knockouts show only minor abnormalities even at 5 months of age.81

3.4 Blood clotting

The endothelial cells which line the circulatory tree serve as a barrier between flowing blood
and the vessel wall, and actively elaborate antithrombotic factors such as PGI2 and nitric oxide
which maintain fluidity of blood. PGI2 derived from endothelial cells effects relaxation of
vascular smooth muscle cells, and also blocks platelet activation when released into the
bloodstream. At sites of vascular injury the antithrombotic properties of the endothelium is lost,
and the platelets are exposed to thrombotic substances that lead to platelet activation. Activated
platelets release ADP and TXA2. ADP leads to the activation of other platelets. TXA2 which is
the major product of arachidonate metabolism in platelets is a powerful inducer of platelet
aggregation and a potent vasoconstrictor.
Platelets do not have nuclei and therefore cannot produce inducible COX, so COX-1 is the only
isoform detectable in the these cells. Inhibition of COX-1 is the aim of ‘half an aspirin a day’
prophylaxis against thromboembolic disease, and is achieved by decreased production of TXA2.
Within 2 hours of a single dose of aspirin, COX-1 is irreversibly inhibited for the life of the
platelet in the circulation (8-10 days). PGI2 production by endothelial cells is also temporarily
decreased, but COX-1 in these cells can regenerate within hours, so PGI2 synthesis is
reestablished.2, 82
Although PGI2 is a potent vasodilator and inhibitor of platelet activation, its role in the intact
organism has remained speculative in the absence of an antagonist of the PGI2 receptor.
However, mice deficient in the IP- receptor (the receptor through which PGI2 mediates its
effects) suggest an important role for PGI2 in mediating inflammation and preventing
thrombosis.83 Furthermore, a recent study by McAdam and coworkers suggests that COX-2
may play a major role in the biosynthesis of both systemic and renal PGI2 under physiological
conditions.84 In this study, celecoxib (doses up to 800mg), rofecoxib and ibuprofen (800mg) all
suppressed excretion of the metabolite of PGI2. However, only ibuprofen significantly inhibited
TXB2 formation ex vivo. This study was conducted in young, healthy volunteers and it remains
to be determined whether these effects are sustained during chronic dosing in patients at risk
for cardiovascular disease.

3.5 Gestation and parturition

Both COX-1 and COX-2 are involved in reproduction. COX-2 is important in rupture of the
follicle during ovulation, and implantation of the embyro in the uterine endometrium.15 PGs are
expressed in the uterine epithelium, and can lead to contraction of uterine smooth muscle. They
are important for inducing uterine contractions during labour, and NSAIDs can therefore
increase the duration of gestation and delay premature labour.85 However, they are rarely used
for this purpose, since in the foetus, PGs maintain the patency of the ductus arteriosis. NSAIDs
can therefore lead to premature duct closure and disruption of fetal circulation.86
The significance of COX in reproduction is supported by studies in knockout mice. COX-2
knockout mice are infertile, and COX-1 knockout mice have few live births when female
homozygotes are mated to male homozygotes.79, 81
4. Drug interactions
Celecoxib is metabolised to inactive metabolites via CYP2C9. Drugs known to inhibit this
isoenzyme should be coadministered with caution due to the potential risk of increasing the
plasma concentration of celecoxib.
Although not involved in its metabolism, celecoxib is an inhibitor of CYP2D6, and hence has
the potential to cause an interaction resulting in the elevation of plasma concentrations of any
drugs metabolised via this isoenzyme.

Table5. Drug interactions involving celecoxib 5, 87, 88

Drug involved in interaction Mechanism and result of interaction

Inhibitors of CYP2C9:
amiodarone, cimetidine,
fluoxetine, zafirlukast,
fluconazole, fluvastatin,
fluvoxamine, metronidazole
ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II
receptor antagonists
Frusemide and thiazides
Lithium
Antacids
Warfarin
Substrates of CYP2D6: beta-
blockers (metoprolol,
propanolol), certain
antidepressants (amitriptyline,
desipramine, clomipramine,
fluoxetine, paroxetine,
venlafaxine), perhexiline and
antipsychotics (haloperidol,
risperidone, thioridazine)
Elevated plasma concentration of celecoxib. Two fold
increase in celecoxib plasma concentration with
coadministration of fluconazole.
Coadministration of celecoxib may diminish the
antihypertensive effect of ACE inhibitors, potential to
induce acute renal impairment in patients who are
renally compensated.
Inhibition of renal prostaglandins by celecoxib may
reduce the natriuretic effect.
Increased lithium plasma levels by 17%, monitor
closely.
Coadministration of aluminium and magnesium
containing antacids reduce plasma concentration of
celecoxib due to impaired oral bioavailability.
Increased prothrombin time and bleeding events
reported, predominantly in elderly patients on
warfarin and celecoxib, monitor carefully 8 9
Increased plasma concentration of substrates due to
inhibition of metabolism by celecoxib.

Codeine and oxycodone Potential for the conversion of codeine to morphine

and oxycodone to oxymorphone via CYP2D6 to be
inhibited by celecoxib, some patients may experience
a decrease in pain relief from codeine and oxycodone
preparations.

Cytochrome P450 enzymes play a minor role in metabolism of rofecoxib, which is mainly
metabolised in the liver by reduction and then excreted in the urine. There are a number of
drug interactions when rofecoxib is coadministered with other agents. Concomitant
administration of antacids led to a 20% decrease in serum concentrations of rofecoxib.
Concomitant administration of rifampicin decreases rofecoxib plasma concentrations by 50%.
Plasma concentrations of methotrexate are increased by a mean of 23% when administered
with rofecoxib, and plasma concentrations of lithium are also increased by rofecoxib.
Rofecoxib taken with warfarin resulted in a 10% increase in prothrombin time. The mechanism
of these interactions is unknown, but therapy with these agents should be carefully monitored
in patients who are taking rofecoxib. Rofecoxib also may decrease the anti-hypertensive effect
of ACE inhibitors.5, 90, 91
5. Published trials of efficacy and adverse effects with celecoxib and rofecoxib.
This section reviews published efficacy studies and adverse event studies for celecoxib and rofecoxib, and makes recommendations on dosage in RA
and OA. Both celecoxib and rofecoxib were approved for use by TGA when full details of studies comparing the active drug to placebo or other
NSAIDs were available only in abstract form, making critical appraisal and assessment by independent reviewers extremely difficult. The experience
in other countries has been similar (see http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter31/htm). Several studies have now appeared in the literature, and in this
section, efficacy studies with celecoxib and rofecoxib are reviewed. When the details of phase III studies are available, data from phase 2 studies is
not presented. Some additional data is also presented from the approved product information for both drugs.

5.1. Efficacy studies

5.1.1 Efficacy studies with celecoxib
Celecoxib has been approved for use in Australia for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in
adults. In OA, celecoxib at doses of 100mg bd and 200mg bd provides significant reduction in pain associated with OA compared with placebo.
When compared with naproxen 500mg bd, celecoxib 100mg bd is as efficacious as higher doses. Hence, the recommended dose of celecoxib in OA
is 100mg bd with or without food.
In RA, celecoxib 100mg bd and 200mg bd provides a significant reduction in pain and inflammation compared to placebo. These doses are equally
efficacious and comparable to naproxen 500mg bd or diclofenac SR 75mg bd, although the product information reports that some patients derived
additional benefit with 200mg bd.
 Table 6. Published efficacy trials with celecoxib
Patients Design/Age Exclusions Dur-ation Main efficacy measures Drug & n Better n Comp-arable n Significant Notes Reference
Dose than to Adverse Effects*
OA, knee Multicentre, Patients with 12 weeks 1. patient and physician’s 50mg bd 203 204 Naproxen 198 Most common 50mg celecoxib Bensen, W. G., et al.
randomised, NSAID or global assessment of OA; 100mg bd 197 placebo 500mg bd events were GIT minimally (1999). Treatment of
double-blind sulphonamide (assessed 2. WOMAC†; 200mg bd 202 placebo symptoms , and effective osteoarthritis with
placebo & sensitivity wks 2,6 3. patient’s assessment of these were compared to celecoxib, a
active excluded & 12) OA pain on a VAS¶ similar amongst higher cyclooxygenase-2
controlled malignancy 4. OA severity index all groups celecoxib doses inhibitor: A randomized
trial active renal GI One patient in or naproxen controlled trial. Mayo
hepatic or naproxen group Clinic Proceedings.
Mean 62-3 yo coagulation had a bleeding Higher doses 74:1095-1105
disorders; ulcer, one were of
oesophageal or patient in comparable Supported in part by
gastroduodenal celecoxib 50mg efficacy to each Searle
ulceration in group had an other and to
previous 30 days ulcer naproxen

OA, knee Identical to Zhao, S. Z., et al. (1999).

previous study Evaluation of the
functional status aspects
of health-related quality
of life of patients with
osteoarthritis treated
with celecoxib.
Pharmacotherapy.
19:1269-1278
RA Multicentre, active renal GI 12 weeks 1. patient and physician’s 100mg bd 240 placebo 231 Naproxen 225 See table 2.1 for all celecoxib Simon, L. S., et al. (1999).
randomised, hepatic or global assessment of 200mg bd 235 * 500mg bd GI adverse events doses were Anti-inflammatory and
double-blind coagulation (assessed arthritis 400mg bd 218 placebo similarly upper gastrointestinal
placebo & disorders; wks 2,6 & 2. patients assessment of placebo No adverse renal efficacious effects of celecoxib in
active malignancy, 12) arthritis pain on a VAS effects. rheumatoid arthritis - A
controlled oesophageal or 3. count of painful/tender randomized controlled
trial gastroduodenal joints * 0-2% incidence trial. JAMA: Journal of
ulceration in 4. count of swollen joints patient of fluid retention the American Medical
Mean 54-5 yo prev. 30 days or 5. duration of morning but not & hypertension Association. 282:1921-
if baseline stiffness physician in all groups 1928
endoscopy 6. functional disability global
showed ulcers or index questionnaire assess- Supported by Searle
> 10 erosions 7. Cp C-reactive protein ment

continued next page

 Table 6. Published efficacy trials with celecoxib continued
RA randomised, any concomitant 24 weeks 1. physician and patient 200mg bd 326 Diclofenac 329 See table 2.1 for Celecoxib and Emery, P. et al. (1999).
double-blind rheumatic assessment of arthritis SR GI side effects - diclofenac were Celecoxib versus
parallel condition, active (assessed 2. number of tender or 75mg bd similarly diclofenac in long-term
active- or suspected wks 4, 8, painful joints effective in management of
controlled peptic ulceration 12, 16,20 3. number of swollen managing RA rheumatoid arthritis:
trial or GI bleeding, & 24) joints pain and randomised double-
coagulation 4. patients responding inflammation blind comparison.
Mean 54-55yo defect or any according to ACR-20‡ Lancet. 354: 2106-2111
other disorder 5 functional disability
precluding score with the modified Supported by Searle
NSAID use, health assessment
malignancy, questionnaire
renal or hepatic 6. duration of morning
disorder, stiffness (VAS)
inflammatory 7. Cp C-reactive protein
bowel disease, 8. withdrawals due to
diclofenac treatment failure.
intolerance,
hypersensitivity
to NSAIDs, COX-
2-selective
NSAIDs or
sulphonamide,
any abnormal
clinical or
laboratory values
pretreatment
+others (see
study)
OA, knee Placebo and Signs and symptoms of 100mg bd Placebo Naproxen Celecoxib Celebrex® product
and hip active arthritis, WOMAC, OA 200mg od 500mg bd comparable to information. (Some
controlled flare 200mg bd naproxen. details have not been
clinical trials Total daily dose published, although
up to 12 of 200mg summaries may be
weeks maximally available in abstract
duration. effective. form)

Approx. 4200
patients
RA Placebo and 100mg bd Placebo Naproxen Celecoxib doses Celebrex® product
active 200mg bd 500mg bd similar in information. (Some
controlled effectiveness details have not been
clinical trials and published, although
up to 24 comparable to summaries may be
weeks naproxen available in abstract
duration. form)

Approx. 2100
patients

*
Studies in efficacy section - were included again in the Side effects section if the title of the article made a specific reference to side effect profile
†
WOMAC - Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (Composite of pain, stiffness and functional measures)
¶
VAS -Visual analog scale ‡ACR-20 - American College of Rheumatology responder index (Composite of clinical, laboratory and functional measures)

Additional Study 92
- Four Phase 2 trials: 2 week OA efficacy trial; 4 week RA efficacy trial; 1 week endoscopic study of GI mucosal effects and a 1 week study of effects on platelet function.
5.1.2 Efficacy studies with rofecoxib
Rofecoxib has been approved by the TGA for the treatment of pain associated with OA. Rofecoxib 12.5mg or 25mg given as a daily dose is
significantly superior to placebo for the treatment of the signs of osteoarthritis. To date (Jan 12, 2000) there have been no active controlled trials
published. However, studies published in abstract form report that a daily dose of 12.5mg or 25mg rofecoxib were comparable to ibuprofen 800mg
tds or diclofenac 50mg tds in treatment of OA of the hip and knee.91, 93, 94

Table 7. Published efficacy trials with rofecoxib

Patients Design/Age Exclusions Dur-ation Main efficacy measures Drug & n Better n Comparable n Significant Notes Reference
Dose than to Adverse Effects
OA, Randomised Previous 6 weeks 1) WOMAC 25mg od 73 Placebo 72 1 gastric bleed Both doses of Ehrich, E. W. et al. (1999). Effect
knee placebo gastric/duodenal 2) patient assessment of OA 125mg od 74 in association rofecoxib were of specific COX-2 inhibition in
controlled trial ulceration; history of (assessed pain on a VAS with gastric superior to osteoarthritis of the knee: A 6
GI bleeding; renal 1,2,4 & 6 3) physician and patient and duodenal placebo from week double blind, placebo
Mean 63.5yo impairment, wks) global assessment of ulcers in 1wk (1st controlled pilot study of
diabetes, history of response to Tx rofecoxib assessment) for rofecoxib. Journal of
cardiovascular, 4) physician global 125mg duration of study Rheumatology. 26:2438-2447
hepatic, neurological assessment of disease status treatment
neoplastic or (Likert scale) group 125mg is 5 times
coagulation disorder 5) patient global assessment the maximum
of disease status Dose-related recommended
6) % of patients who peripheral dose for
discontinued due to lack of oedema 2.7% treatment of OA
efficacy and 6.8% in 25
and 125mg
treatment
groups
respectively
RA Phase II other inflammatory 8 weeks 1) swollen joint count 5mg od 158 No clinically 25 and 50mg Schnitzer, T. J. et al. (1999). The
arthropathies, 2) tender joint count 25mg od 171 Placebo 168 significant rofecoxib safety profile, tolerability, and
Randomised, uncontrolled (assessed 3) patient global assessment 50mg/od 161 oedema or significantly effective dose range of
double-blind diabetes, active GI 2,4 & 8 of disease activity on a VAS hypertension. better than rofecoxib in the treatment of
placebo bleeding or weeks) 4) investigator global No serious GI placebo. 5mg rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical
controlled trial ulceration, assessment of disease activity effects not significantly Therapeutics. 21:1688-1702
positive stool guaiac (Likert scale) different to
Mean 54-55yo screen, malignancy, 5) Stanford Health placebo.
recent serious assessment questionnaire
cardiovascular disability index Rofecoxib Groups
disease, hepatic or 6) patient global assessment well matched for
renal impairment, of pain on a VAS age and sex
NSAID or 7) levels of C-reactive protein
paracetamol
sensitivity
OA, Six randomised Signs and symptoms of OA 1.25mg od Placebo Diclofenac Rofecoxib Vioxx® Product Information.
knee or clinical trials of 25mg od 50mg tid comparable to (Full details of studies not
hip rofecoxib Joint space narrowing at one diclofenac or published, although summaries
lasting from 6 year (compared to diclofenac Ibuprofen ibuprofen may be available in abstract
to 86 weeks. only) 800mg tid form)
4035 patients
including
approx. 400 pts
>80yo
5.2 Adverse effect studies with celecoxib and rofecoxib
The COX-2-selective NSAIDs are new drugs for which there is a limited amount of published comparative safety data. Most clinical trials are
powered to detect drug efficacy, not drug safety.. Drug side effects can be classified as being type A or type B reactions. Type A reactions are
common reactions which are dose-dependent and in line with the pharmacology of the drug. These effects will often emerge in the clinical trial
process, but this is not always the case. For example, it was some years after marketing that the ACE inhibitor cough emerged as one of the most
common side effects of this class of drug. In contrast, type B reactions are idiosyncratic, rare and more likely to be serious. Since they are infrequent,
these reactions are rarely detected by clinical trials but emerge as a consequence of vigilant reporting of adverse effects. Therefore, and accurate
picture of a drug’s adverse effects profile may not appear until several years after a drug is introduced into therapeutics.

5.2.1 Gastrointestinal (GI) complications

The most common adverse effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib in clinical trials are dyspepsia, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. When compared to non-
selective NSAIDs, the COX-2-selective NSAIDs result in a lower incidence of dyspepsia, but the difference is modest and may not be clinically
relevant.
The major marketing tactic for the COX-2-selective NSAIDs is their relative safety compared with traditional NSAIDs. To date, no studies have
assessed the effect of celecoxib or rofecoxib on PG synthesis in the human gastric mucosa at therapeutic doses. However, in clinical trials there is a
statistically significant decrease in the incidence of endoscopically proven ulcers in patients treated with both agents.
Several factors complicate the interpretation of published clinical trials. Firstly, most studies have defined an ulcer as a ‘3mm lesion with unequivocal
depth’, although one study also used 5mm ulcers as a secondary end-point (see section 3.24). In the majority of patients these ulcers are
asymptomatic, and are a surrogate endpoint which may or may not reflect the real risk of developing serious ulcer complications. This has been a
contentious issue in the literature, but there is evidence that endoscopic ulcers are predictive of adverse clinical events. Secondly, limited numbers of
patients have been treated with either agent so the incidence of potentially uncommon GI side effects may not become evident until the drugs are
more widely used in clinical practice. A third difficulty is that although some studies permitted inclusion of patients with a history of GI ulcers or
bleeding, no published study has permitted inclusion of patients with active ulcers. Since COX-2 is detectable in the ulcerated mucosa, and animal
studies have suggested that COX-2 inhibitors may impair ulcer healing, care must be taken in using these agents in patients who have existing ulcers
or erosions. Because of these factors, large scale post-marketing surveillance and vigilant adverse event reporting will be required to determine to
what extent these agents significantly decrease the incidence of clinically important ulcers, particularly in patients at high risk for ulcer
complications.
Peterson and Cryer in an editorial in JAMA make the following point ‘In patients with RA with no risk factors for NSAID-induced ulcers, the risk
of developing an ulcer complication related to NSAID use is only 0.4%.38 Assuming that a COX-1-sparing NSAID will prevent complicated ulcers
in approximately 50% of patients taking NSAIDs (reducing the risk to 0.2%), 500 low-risk patients would need to be treated with a COX-1-sparing
NSAID to prevent each complicated ulcer that might have developed had all of these low-risk patients been taking traditional NSAIDs.’ These
figures are based on drug costs in the USA, and do not take into account the costs of endoscopies, concomitant treatment with gastroprotective
agents, or hospitalisations for serious GI toxicity.
Due to the perceived relative safety of celecoxib with regard to GI complications, it is likely that it will be prescribed for those patients at greatest
risk, such as patients with a history of GI erosion or ulceration. The GI complication rate in this group of patients is as yet unknown
5.2.2 Renal complications
The effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib on the renal system are not clear. Therefore caution should be exercised in prescribing these agents in patients
with congestive heart failure (CHF), fluid retention, hypertension or impaired renal function. No studies have permitted the inclusion of patients
with moderate to severe renal failure, and most studies have excluded patients with mildly impaired renal function (i.e. creatinine clearance (CLCr) <
50mL/min).
A study of celecoxib in healthy males who were sodium restricted found that celecoxib decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and renal blood
flow and significantly reduced sodium excretion after 7 days. Another study assessed the effects of rofecoxib on the renal function of healthy elderly
subjects who were not renally impaired. This study found that rofecoxib did not significantly affect GFR or sodium excretion, but the patients in
this study were not sodium restricted and fed a diet which had 10x the recommended daily allowance of sodium. COX-2 and the renin-angiotensin
system are induced in response to restriction of dietary sodium. It is therefore difficult to comment on the significance of these studies and their
relevance to renally impaired elderly patients who may not be able to tolerate chances in fluid volume. In healthy volunteers, both celecoxib and
rofecoxib can decrease renal biosynthesis of PGI2. It may therefore be predicted that problems with fluid retention and overload could arise in the
elderly, and in patients with impaired renal function. This may be particularly important in patients on ACE inhibitor therapy with compensatory
mechanisms working to maintain renal blood flow. The addition of a COX-2 inhibitor may induce acute renal failure similar to that reported with
the combination of traditional NSAIDs and ACE inhibitors.

5.2.3 Bleeding time

In clinical trials, celecoxib and rofecoxib have no effect on platelets and bleeding times when administered alone. However, a study in healthy
volunteers has demonstrated that celecoxib and rofecoxib can decrease both renal and systemic synthesis of PGI2.84 The significance of this effect in
patients with thromboembolic disease remains to be determined. Furthermore, both celecoxib and rofecoxib may lead to increases in prothrombin
time when administered concomitantly with warfarin.5, 89

5.2.4 NSAID-sensitive asthmatics

No trials have been conducted in patients who are hypersensitive to NSAIDs.
 Table 9. Published trials assessing safety of celecoxib

Author Study Design Treatment n Measures Results and Comment

Simon, L.S. et al. (1999).
Anti-inflammatory and
upper gastrointestinal
effects of celecoxib in
rheumatoid arthritis - A
randomized controlled
trial. JAMA: Journal of the
American Medical
Association. 282:1921-1928
Supported by Searle
Rossat, J. et al. (1999).
Renal effects of selective
cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition
in normotensive salt-
depleted subjects. Clinical
Pharmacology and
Therapeutics. 66:76-84
Sponsored by Searle
Emery, P. et al. (1999).
Celecoxib versus diclofenac
in long-term management
of rheumatoid arthritis:
randomised double-blind
comparison. Lancet. 354:
2106-2111
Supported by Searle
McAdam, B.F.et al. (1999).
Systemic biosynthesis of
prostacyclin by
cyclooxygenase (COX)-2:
the human pharmacology
of a selective inhibitor of
COX-2. Proceedings of the
National Academy of
Sciences of the United
States of America. 96:272-7
12 week randomised, double-blind
placebo & active controlled trial of
patients with RA
EXCLUDED: active renal GI hepatic or
coagulation disorders; oesophageal
or gastroduodenal ulceration in
prev. 30 days or if baseline
endoscopy showed ulcers or > 10
erosions
7 day randomised, double blind trial
of 40 healthy young male volunteers
(Mean age 24.8yo).
All subjected to a low salt diet
(<50mmol Na+ and 3500Calories/day)
beginning 5 days before the study
and continuing throughout. 40mg
Frusemide administered on day 1 to
achieve a faster Na+ depletion
24 week randomised, double-blind
parallel active-controlled trial.
Patients with a history of GI ulcer or
bleeding NOT excluded.
EXCLUDED: any concomitant
rheumatic condition, active or
suspected peptic ulceration or GI
bleeding, coagulation defect or any
other disorder precluding NSAID use,
malignancy, renal or hepatic
disorder, inflammatory bowel
disease, diclofenac intolerance,
hypersensitivity to NSAIDs, COX-2-
selective NSAIDs or sulphonamide,
any abnormal clinical or laboratory
values pretreatment +others
24hr randomised, double-blind trial
of healthy volunteers aged 21-49.
EXCLUDED: history of coagulation
disorder, bleeding tendency, drug
allergy or GI disorder
Placebo 231 Upper GI endoscopy performed within
Celecoxib 100mg bd 240 7 days prior to first dose of medication.
Celecoxib 200mg bd 235 Mucosa of stomach and duodenum
Celecoxib 400mg bd 217 evaluated separately for petechiae,
Naproxen 500mg bd 225 erosions and ulcers. Ulcers defined as
break in mucosa at least 3mm in
diameter with unequivocal depth.
Repeated at the final treatment or early
termination visit. Patients also tested
for H. pylori.
Placebo 10 Renal haemodynamic (renal plasma
Celecoxib 200mg bd 10 flow and GFR) and tubular responses
Celecoxib 400mg bd 10 (electrolyte excretion), blood pressure,
Naproxen 500mg bd 10 heart rate. 24hr electrolyte excretion
assessed daily; other effects assessed
pre- and post-dosing on days 1 and 7.
Celecoxib 200mg bd 212 GI safety based on a single upper GI
endoscopy at week 24 or time of
Diclofenac SR 218 withdrawal from study. Injury to
75mg bd gastric and duodenal mucosa were
evaluated separately taking note of
petechiae, erosions and ulcer. An ulcer
was defined as a break in the mucosa of
at least 3mm with unequivocal depth.
GI tollerability based on clinical
laboratory tests, physical examinations,
adverse events and study withdrawals.
Data on perforation, bleeding or gastric
outlet obstruction were assessed using
prespecified criteria judged by a
blinded, external committee of
gastroenterologists
Placebo 7 Platelet aggregation ex vivo,
Single dose of: Serum TXB2 levels,
Celecoxib 100mg 7 Whole blood monocyte COX-2 activity
Celecoxib 400mg 7 and
Celecoxib 800mg 7 Urinary metabolites of systemic and
Ibuprofen 800mg 7 renal prostacyclin biosynthesis (2,3-
dinor-6-keto PGF1 and 6-keto PGF1
respectively)
Gastroduodenal ulcers occurred in 4% of
placebo patients, 4-6% of celecoxib-
treated patients and 26% of naproxen-
treated patients. Few of the ulcers were
symptomatic. 1 naproxen-treated
patient developed two ulcers creating a
partial gastric outlet obstruction.
Very small study to detect rare GI events.
Celecoxib resulted in transient but
significant decrease in glomerular
filtration rate and a decrease in renal
plasma flow, comparable to the effect of
naproxen. Celecoxib also significantly
reduced urinary volume and sodium and
potassium excretion at day 7. The
authors concluded that celecoxib does
not spare the kidney in salt depleted
subjects and caution may need to be
exercised when celecoxib is
coadministered with diuretics or in
patients with hypertension and/or CHF.
Gastrointestinal adverse events were
reported in 48% of patients taking
diclofenac and 36% of patients taking
celecoxib.
5 GI events required hospitalisation of
patients on diclofenac. These included
one ulcer.
The respective incidences of gastric and
duodenal ulcers were 34% and 11% for
patients on diclofenac, and 18% and 5%
for patients on celecoxib.
Haemoglobin levels were lower in
diclofenac-treated patients
Celecoxib didn’t affect platelet
aggregation, but had a significant
inhibitory effect on serum TXB2 4hrs after
dosing.
Celecoxib and ibuprofen induced a
significant decrease in systemic and renal
prostacyclin biosynthesis, and similar
effects have been reported with
rofecoxib after chronic dosing in elderly
patients

Author
Langman, M. J.et al. (1999).
Adverse upper
gastrointestinal effects of
rofecoxib compared with
NSAIDs. JAMA: Journal of
the American Medical
Association. 282:1929-1933
Supported by Merck & Co.
Inc.
Laine, L., et al (1999). A
randomzed trial comparing
the effect of rofecoxib, a
cyclooxygenase 2-specific
inhibitor, with that of
ibuprofen on the
gastroduodenal mucosa of
patients with
osteoarthritis.
Gastroeneterology.
117:776-783
Lanza, F. L. et al. (1999).
Specific inhibition of
cyclooxygenase-2 with MK-
0966 is associated with less
gastroduodenal damage
than either aspirin or
ibuprofen. Alimentary
Pharmacology and
Therapeutics. 13:761-7
Catella-Lawson, F.et al.
(1999). Effects of specific
inhibition of
cyclooxygenase-2 on
sodium balance,
haemodynamics, and
vasoactive eicosanoids.
Journal of Pharmacology
and Experimental
Therapeutics. 289:735-41
Table 10. Published trials assessing safety of rofecoxib
Study Design
Pooled analysis of patients from 8
phase 2b/3 trials of rofecoxib for
OA
See article for details of trials.
Both active and placebo
controlled trials used.
6 month randomised double-
blind trial in OA patients ≥50yo.
Patients with gastroduodenal
erosions at baseline were eligible.
EXCLUSIONS: active GI ulceration,
pyloric obstruction or erosive
oesophagitis. SCr>2mg/dL or
CLCr 30mL/min (moderate renal
impairment), unstable medical
disease, prior cerebrovascular
events; treatment with
anticoagulants, ticlopidine,
aspirin or corticosteroids.
7 day randomised, double-blind
parallel study in healthy subjects
(age range 18-54y) with
endoscopically normal gastric and
duodenal mucosae
EXCLUSIONS: significant GI
disease, history of GI surgery,
recent thoracic or abdominal
surgery, significant medical
condition, history of using
antacids, H2 antagonists, proton
pump inhibitors or misoprostil or
NSAID use in previous 2 weeks.
Smoking, allergy to NSAIDs,
alcohol dependence or ≥4
caffeinated beverages/day.
2 week randomised double-blind
placebo and active controlled
trial in healthy, elderly subjects
without renal impairment
All subjected to a fixed isocaloric
diet
(200mMol Na+ and 60-80mMol K+)
EXCLUSIONS: hypertension or
diabetes requiring pharmacologic
intervention. SCr>2mg/dL and
CLCr<50mL/min. Smokers or
NSAID users.
Treatment
Placebo
Rofecoxib (12.5, 25 and 50mg
od)
NSAID (ibuprofen 800mg tds,
diclofenac 50mg tds or
nambumetone 1500mg od)
Placebo (ceased after wk 16)
Rofecoxib 25mg od
Rofecoxib 50mg od
Ibuprofen 800mg tds
Placebo
Rofecoxib 250mg od
Ibuprofen 800mg tds
Aspirin 650mg qid
Placebo
Rofecoxib 50mg od
Indomethacin
50mg tid
n Measures
514 Incidence of 1) upper GI perforations,
3357 2) symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers, and 3)
upper GI bleeding during treatment and within
1564 14 days of drug discontinuation.
Based on survival analysis of time to first GI
incident , using prespecified criteria judged by
a blinded, external adjudication committee.
177 Cumulative incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers
≥3mm in diameter. Secondary endpoint was
195 ulcers ≥5mm in diameter. Endoscopies
186 performed at baseline, then wks 6,12 & 24 and
184 at early discontinuation, moderate to severe
upper GI symptoms ≥2d duration or at
investigators discretion.
Adverse experiences analysed by life table
method and log-rank test
51 Baseline endoscopy, physical examination and
51 laboratory evaluations (chemistry, haematology
51 and urinalysis). All repeated at day 8.
17
Erosive mucosal injury score used to assess GI
damage. Proportion of subjects developing
erosions or ulcers compared to those with a
normal mucosa or mucosal haemorrhages only.
12 24hr Na+ and K+ excretion assessed daily. GFR
12 assessed days -1 and 14. Urinary excretion of N-
acetyl-b-glucosaminidase as an index of
12 proximal tubular dysfunction was assessed days
-2 and 13. BP was assessed q4h between 8am
and 8pm.
Urinary excretion of TXA2 metabolites in
addition to renal and external PGI2 metabolites
assessed days -2,1 and 13.
Results and Comment
Cumulative incidence of dyspepsia up to 6 months was
23.5% with rofecoxib and 25.5% with NSAIDs, after
which the rates converged.
12 month cumulative incidences of study drug
discontinuation due to GI adverse effects was 5.2% for
rofecoxib and 7.8% for NSAIDs (P=0.02).
The cumulative incidence of ulcers, perforations and
bleeding over 12 months was 1.3% with rofecoxib vs
1.8% with NSAIDs.
Incidence of 3 and 5mm ulcers significantly lower in
rofecoxib-treated groups compared to ibuprofen.
At week 24, cumulative 5mm ulcer incidences were 4.6,
11.6 and 30.2% for rofecoxib 25, 50 and ibuprofen
2400mg groups respectively.
Subgroup analysis at 12 weeks indicated that age≥65y,
history of past GI events and presence of GI erosions at
baseline were associated with an increased risk for
ulcer development which was similar in all treatment
groups
Very short study. Proportion of patients with erosions
or ulcerations significantly lower in rofecoxib-treated
group compared to aspirin and ibuprofen, and not
significantly different to placebo.
Short-term administration of rofecoxib and
indomethacin induced a transient decline in sodium
excretion during the first 72hrs of treatment.
Indomethacin but not rofecoxib decreased GFR at day
14.
TXA2 biosynthesis by platelets was affected by
indomethacin only.
Urinary excretion of renal and systemic metabolites of
PGI2 were significantly decreased compared to baseline
after treatment with rofecoxib and indomethacin.
6. Conclusions.
Celebrex® and Vioxx® are not more effective as antiinflammatory agents than existing NSAIDs,
although they have a slightly different adverse event profile. Randomised, double-blind,
controlled trials have demonstrated a decreased incidence of gastric and duodenal ulceration
compared to non selective NSAIDs. Patients with existing ulcers have largely been excluded
from these published trials, but some trials have allowed enrolment of patients with a history of
peptic or duodenal ulcers, and amongst these patients there did not appear to be an increased
incidence of GI injury. As such, COX-2-selective NSAIDs appear to be drugs of choice for
patients with gastric sensitivity to non-selective NSAIDs, and provide new options for patients
who could not tolerate non-selective NSAIDs. COX-2-selective NSAIDs seem also to be an
appropriate option for elderly patients (over the age of 65 years) with RA or OA who at high
risk for adverse GI events with non-selective NSAIDs. Further trials are required to investigate
the impact of H. pylori infection in patients who are treated with COX-2-selective NSAIDs, as
is investigation into the role and efficacy of gastroprotective agents in combination with COX-
2-selective NSAIDs.
COX-2-selective NSAIDs can lead to other problems in certain groups of patients, but it seems
as though the same cautions apply as for traditional NSAIDs. For example, care should be
exercised in prescribing COX-2-selective NSAIDs for patients with renal insufficiency, cardiac
disease and thromboembolic disease. The drugs are contraindicated in pregnancy and in
patients with aspirin-sensitive asthma.
Because of the improved GI safety profile of these agents, there seems to be an assumption that
these agents will be ‘safer’ drugs. In support of this, ADRAC has more than 300 reports
describing adverse reactions to celecoxib in the first 3 months after marketing, and most of
these events have been documented in clinical trials and described in the product information.
The improved GI safety profile of celecoxib has formed the basis of the advertising campaign in
this country, and this seems to have impacted on public and prescriber perceptions of the
adverse event profile. (For a discussion of the issues involved in the promotion of drugs see
http://www.camtech.net.au/malam and for a specific discussion of the advertising of celecoxib
see http://www.camtech.net.au/malam/Inter.htm.) It is almost certain that adverse effects other
than those reported in clinical trials will emerge as more people take these drugs. Prescribers
who use these agents need to aware of the potential for adverse effects which may be new and
rare events, and report these events to ADRAC.

7. References
1. Smith, W. L., L. J. Marnett. 1991. Prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase: Structure and catalysis. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1083: 1-17
2 Campbell, W. B., P. V. Halushka. 1996. Lipid-derived autacoids: eicosanoids and Platelet-activating factor. In Goodman and Gilman’s
The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 601-616.
3 Foegh, M. L., M. Hecker, P. W. Ramwell. 1998. The eicosanoids: Prostaglandins, thromboxanes, leukotrienes and related compounds.
Seventh Edition ed. In Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, ed. B. G. Katzung, 304-318. Stamford, Connecticut, USA: Appleton & Lange
4 Mitchell, J. A., T. D. Warner. 1999. Cyclo-oxygenase-2: pharmacology, physiology, biochemistry and relevance to NSAID therapy. Br J
Pharmacol. 128: 1121-1132
5 Kaplan-Machlis, B., B. S. Klostermeyer. 1999. The cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: safety and effectiveness. Ann. Pharmacotherapy. 33:
979-88
6 Fu, J. Y., J. L. Masferrer, K. Seibert, A. Raz, P. Needleman. 1990. The induction and suppression of prostaglandin H2 synthase
(cyclooxygenase) in human monocytes. J Biol Chem. 265: 16737-40
7 Masferrer, J. L., B. S. Zweifel, K. Seibert, P. Needleman. 1990. Selective regulation of cellular cyclooxygenase by dexamethasone and
endotoxin in mice. J Clin Invest. 86: 1375-9
8 Lee, S., E. Soyoola, P. Chanmugam, S. Hart, W. Sun, H. Zhong, S. Liou, D. Simmons, D. Hwang. 1992. Selective expression of
mitogen-inducible cyclooxygenase in macrophages stimulated with lipopolysaccharide. J Biol Chem. 267: 25934-25938
9 Jones, D., D. Carlton, T. McIntyre, G. Zimmerman, S. Prescott. 1993. Molecular cloning of human prostaglandin endoperoxide
synthase type II and demonstration of expression in response to cytokines. J Biol Chem. 268: 9049-9054
10 O’Sullivan, M., F. Chilton, E. Huggins, Jr, C. McCall. 1992. Lipopolysaccharide priming of alveolar macrophages for enhanced
synthesis of prostanoids involves induction of a novel prostaglandin H synthase. J Biol Chem. 267: 14547-14550
11 Komhoff, M., H.-J. Grone, T. Klein, H. W. Seyberth, R. M. Nusing. 1997. Localization of cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in adult and fetal
human kidney: implications for renal function. Am J Physiol. 272: F460-8
12 Topper, J. N., J. Cai, D. Falb, M. A. J. Gimbrone. 1996. Identification of vascular endothelial genes differentially responsive to fluid
mechanical stimuli: cyclooxygenase-2, manganese superoxide dismutase, and endothelial cell nitric oxide synthase are selectively
up-regulated by steady laminar shear stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93: 10417-22
13 Kaufmann, W. E., P. F. Worley, J. Pegg, M. Bremer, P. Isakson. 1996. COX-2, a synaptically induced enzyme, is expressed by excitatory
neurons at postsynaptic sites in rat cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93: 2317-21
14 Cao, C., K. Matsumura, K. Yamagata, Y. Watanabe. 1996. Endothelial cells of the rat brain vasculature express cyclooxygenase-2
mRNA in response to systemic interleukin-1 beta: a possible site of prostaglandin synthesis responsible for fever. Brain Res. 733:
263-72
15 Dubois, R. N., S. B. Abramson, L. Crofford, R. A. Gupta, L. S. Simon, L. B. Van De Putte, P. E. Lipsky. 1998. Cyclooxygenase in biology
and disease. Faseb J. 12: 1063-73
16 Gierse, J. K., J. J. McDonald, S. D. Hauser, S. H. Rangwala, C. M. Koboldt, K. Seibert. 1996. A single amino acid difference between
cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and -2 (COX-2) reverses the selectivity of COX-2 specific inhibitors. J Biol Chem. 271: 15810-4
17 Kurumbail, R. G., A. M. Stevens, J. K. Gierse, J. J. McDonald, R. A. Stegeman, J. Y. Pak, D. Gildehaus, J. M. Miyashiro, T. D. Penning,
K. Seibert, P. C. Isakson, W. C. Stallings. 1996. Structural basis for selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by anti-inflammatory
agents [published erratum appears in Nature 1997 Feb 6;385(6616):555]. Nature. 384: 644-8
18 Hawkey, C. J. 1999. COX-2 inhibitors [see comments]. Lancet. 353: 307-14
19 Brooks, P., P. Emery, J. F. Evans, H. Fenner, C. J. Hawkey, C. Patrono, J. Smolen, F. Breedveld, R. Day, M. Dougados, E. W. Ehrich, J.
Gijon-Banos, T. K. Kvien, M. H. Van Rijswijk, T. Warner, H. Zeidler. 1999. Interpreting the clinical significance of the differential
inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2. Rheumatology. 38: 779-788
20 Smith, J. B., A. L. Willis. 1971. Aspirin selectivity inhibits prostaglandin production in human platelets. Chest. 59: 12S
21 Vane, J. R. 1971. Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a mechanism of action for the aspirin-like drugs. Nature. 1083: 1-17
22 Patrignani, P., M. R. Panara, A. Greco, O. Fusco, C. Natoli, S. Iacobelli, F. Cipollone, A. Ganci, C. Créminon, J. Maclouf, e. al. 1994.
Biochemical and pharmacological characterization of the cyclooxygenase activity of human blood prostaglandin endoperoxide
synthases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 271: 1705-12
23 Warner, T. D., F. Giuliano, I. Vojnovic, A. Bukasa, J. A. Mitchell, J. R. Vane. 1999. Nonsteroid drug selectivities for cyclo-oxygenase-1
rather than cyclo-oxygenase-2 are associated with human gastrointestinal toxicity: a full in vitro analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
96: 7563-8
24 Mitchell, J. A., M. Saunders, P. J. Barnes, R. Newton, M. G. Belvisi. 1997. Sodium salicylate inhibits cyclo-oxygenase-2 activity
independently of transcription factor (nuclear factor kappaB) activation: role of arachidonic acid. Mol Pharmacol. 51: 907-12
25 Hamilton, L. C., J. A. Mitchell, A. M. Tomlinson, T. D. Warner. 1999. Synergy between cyclo-oxygenase-2 induction and arachidonic
acid supply in vivo: consequences for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug efficacy. Faseb J. 13: 245-51
26 Henry, D., L. L. Lim, L. A. Garcia Rodriguez, S. Perez Gutthann, J. L. Carson, M. Griffin, R. Savage, R. Logan, Y. Moride, C. Hawkey, S.
Hill, J. T. Fries. 1996. Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs:
results of a collaborative meta-analysis [see comments]. Br Med J. 312: 1563-6
27 1997. Therapeutic Guidelines: Analgesic. 3rd Edition ed. North Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Therapeutic Guidelines Ltd
28 Anderson, G. D., S. D. Hauser, K. L. McGarity, M. E. Bremer, P. C. Isakson, S. A. Gregory. 1996. Selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase
(COX)-2 reverses inflammation and expression of COX-2 and interleukin 6 in rat adjuvant arthritis. J Clin Invest. 97: 2672-9
29 Crofford, L. J., R. L. Wilder, A. P. Ristimäki, H. Sano, E. F. Remmers, H. R. Epps, T. Hla. 1994. Cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 expression in
rheumatoid synovial tissues. Effects of interleukin-1 beta, phorbol ester, and corticosteroids J Clin Invest. 93: 1095-101
30 Siegle, I., T. Klein, J. T. Backman, J. G. Saal, R. M. Nüsing, P. Fritz. 1998. Expression of cyclooxygenase 1 and cyclooxygenase 2 in
human synovial tissue: differential elevation of cyclooxygenase 2 in inflammatory joint diseases. Arthritis Rheum. 41: 122-9
31 Hishinuma, T., H. Nakamura, T. Sawai, M. Uzuki, Y. Itabash, M. Mizugaki. 1999. Microdetermination of prostaglandin E2 in joint
fluid in rheumatoid arthritis patients using gas chromatography/selected ion monitoring. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 58:
179-186
32 Amin, A. R., M. Attur, R. N. Patel, G. D. Thakker, P. J. Marshall, J. Rediske, S. A. Stuchin, I. R. Patel, S. B. Abramson. 1997.
Superinduction of cyclooxygenase-2 activity in human osteoarthritis-affected cartilage. Influence of nitric oxide. J Clin Invest.99:
1231-7
33 Davies, P., P. J. Bailey, M. M. Goldenberg, A. W. Ford-Hutchinson. 1994. The role of arachidonic acid oxygenation products in pain
and inflammation. Annu Rev Immunol. 2: 335-57
34 Williams, T. J., M. J. Peck. 1977. Role of prostaglandin-mediated vasodilatation in inflammation. Nature. 270: 530-532
35 Yamamoto, T., N. Nozaki-Taguchi. 1996. Analysis of the effects of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 in spinal nociceptive
transmission using indomethacin, a non-selective COX inhibitor, and NS-398, a COX-2 selective inhibitor. Brain Res. 739: 104-10
36 Coceani, F., E. S. Akarsu. 1998. Prostaglandin E2 in the pathogenesis of fever. An update. Ann NY Acad Sci. 856: 76-82
37 Zimmermann, K. C., M. Sarbia, K. Schror, A. A. Weber. 1998. Constitutive cyclooxygenase-2 expression in healthy human and rabbit
gastric mucosa. Mol Pharmacol. 54: 536-40
38 Silverstein, F. E., D. Y. Graham, J. R. Senior, H. W. Davies, B. J. Struthers, e. al. 1995. Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal
complications in patients iwht rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 123: 241-9
39 Fries, J. F. 1991. NSAID gastropathy: the second most deadly rheumatic disease? Epidemiology and risk appraisal. J Rheumatol
Suppl. 28: 6-10
40 Wolfe, M. M., D. R. Lichtenstein, G. Singh. 1999. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med.
340: 1888-1899
41 MacDonald, T. M., S. V. Morant, G. C. Robinson, M. J. Shield, M. M. McGilchrist, F. E. Murray, D. G. McDevitt. 1997. Association of
upper gastrointestinal toxicity of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with continued exposure: cohort study. Br Med J. 315:
1333-7
42 Singh, G., G. Triadafilopoulus. 1999. Epidemiology of NSAID-induced GI complications. J Rheumatol. 26 Suppl 56: 18-24
43 Singh, G., D. R. Ramey, D. Morfeld, H. Shi, H. T. Hatoum, J. F. Fries. 1996. Gastrointestinal tract complications of nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective observational cohort study. Arch Intern Med. 156: 1530-6
44 Hawkey, C. J. 1996. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy: causes and treatment. Scand J Gastroenterol. Suppl. 220:
124-7
45 McManus, P., J. G. Primrose, D. A. Henry, D. J. Birkett, J. Lindner, R. O. Day. 1996. Pattern of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug
 use in Australia 1990-1994. A report from the Drug Utilization Sub-Committee of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
[see comments]. Med J Aust. 164: 589-92
46 Henry, D., A. Dobson, C. Turner. 1993. Variability in the risk of major gastrointestinal complications from nonaspirin nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs. Gastroenterology. 105: 1078-88
47 Graham, D. Y. 1996. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, helocobacter pylori, and ulcers: where we stand. Am J Gastroenterol.
91: 2080-2086
48 Schoen, R. T., R. J. Vender. 1989. Mechanisms of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastric damage. Am J Med. 86: 449-
58
49 Whittle, B. J. R., G. A. Higgs, K. E. Eakins, S. Moncada, J. R. Vane. 1980. Selective inhibition of prostaglandin production in
inflammatory exudates and gastric mucosa. Nature. 284: 271-3
50 Levi, S., C. Shaw-Smith. 1994. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: how do they damage the gut? Br J Rheumatol. 33: 605-612
51 Bamba, H., S. Ota, A. Kato, F. Matsuzaki. 1998. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may delay the repair of gastric mucosa by
suppressing prostaglandin-mediated increase of hepatocyte growth factor production. BiochemBiophys Res Commun. 245: 567-71
52 Maliekal, J., C. M. Elboim. 1995. Gastrointestinal complications associated with intramuscular ketorolac tromethamine therapy in
the elderly. Ann Pharmacother. 29: 698-701
53 Lanza, F. L., G. L. J. Royer, R. S. Nelson. 1980. Endoscopic evaluation of the effects of aspirin, buffered aspirin, and enteric-coated
aspirin on gastric and duodenal mucosa. N Engl J Med. 303: 136-8
54 Lichtenstein, D. R., S. Syngal, M. M. Wolfe. 1995. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the gastrointestinal tract. The double-
edged sword. Arthritis Rheum. 38: 5-18
55 Graham, D. Y. 1997. High dose famotidine for prevention of NSAID ulcers? (Editorial). Gastroenterology. 112: 2143-5
56 Graham, D. Y., P. D. Klein, A. R. Opekun, T. W. Boutton. 1988. Effect of age on the frequency of active Campylobacter pylori
infection diagnosed by the [13C]urea breath test in normal subjects and patients with peptic ulcer disease. J Infect Dis. 157: 777-80
57 Chan, F. K., J. J. Sung, S. C. Chung, K. F. To, M. Y. Yung, V. K. Leung, Y. T. Lee, C. S. Chan, E. K. Li, J. Woo. 1997. Randomised trial of
eradication of Helicobacter pylori before non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy to prevent peptic ulcers [see comments].
Lancet. 350: 975-9
58 Hawkey, C. J., Z. Tulassay, L. Szczepanski, C. J. van Rensburg, A. Filipowicz-Sosnowska, A. Lanas, C. M. Wason, R. A. Peacock, K. R.
Gillon. 1998. Randomised controlled trial of Helicobacter pylori eradication in patients on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs:
HELP NSAIDs study. Helicobacter Eradication for Lesion Prevention [see comments]. Lancet. 352: 1016-21
59 Sawaoka, H., S. Kawano, S. Tsuji, M. Tsuji, W. Sun, E. S. Gunawan, M. Hori. 1998. Helicobacter pylori infection induces
cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human gastric mucosa. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 59: 313-6
60 McCarthy, C. J., L. J. Crofford, J. Greenson, J. M. Scheiman. 1999. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in gastric antral mucosa before and
after eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 94: 1218-23
61 Mizuno, H., C. Sakamoto, K. Matsuda, K. Wada, T. Uchida, H. Noguchi, T. Akamatsu, M. Kasuga. 1997. Induction of cyclooxygenase
2 in gastric mucosal lesions and its inhibition by the specific antagonist delays healing in mice [see comments]. Gastroenterology.
112: 387-97
62 Jones, M. K., H. Wang, B. M. Peskar, E. Levin, R. M. Itani, I. J. Sarfeh, A. S. Tarnawski. 1999. Inhibition of angiogenesis by
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: insight into mechanisms and implications for cancer growth and ulcer healing. Nat Med. 5:
1418-23
63 Sheng, H., J. Shao, S. C. Kirkland, P. Isakson, R. J. Coffey, J. Morrow, R. D. Beauchamp, R. N. DuBois. 1997. Inhibition of human colon
cancer cell growth by selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2. J Clin Invest. 99: 2254-9
64 Murata, H., S. Kawano, S. Tsuji, M. Tsuji, H. Sawaoka, Y. Kimura, H. Shiozaki, M. Hori. 1999. Cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression
enhances lymphatic invasion and metastasis in human gastric carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 94: 451-5
65 Kawamori, T., C. V. Rao, K. Seibert, B. S. Reddy. 1998. Chemopreventive activity of celecoxib, a specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor,
against colon carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 58: 409-12
66 Dimberg, J., A. Samuelsson, A. Hugander, P. Soderkvist. 1999. Differential expression of cyclooxygenase 2 in human colorectal
cancer. Gut. 45: 730-732
67 Eberhart, C. E., R. J. Coffey, A. Radhika, F. M. Giardiello, S. Ferrenbach, R. N. DuBois. 1994. Up-regulation of cyclooxygenase 2 gene
expression in human colorectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas. Gastroenterology. 107: 1183-8
68 Schlondorff, D. 1986. Renal prostaglandin synthesis. Sites of production and specific actions of prostaglandins. Am J Med. 81: 1-11
69 Kaojarern, S., P. Chennavasin, S. Anderson, D. C. Brater. 1983. Nephron site of effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on
solute excretion in humans. Am J Physiol. 244: F134-9
70 Clive, D. M., J. S. Stoff. 1984. Clinical syndromes associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. I Med. 310: 563-572
71 Patrono, C., M. J. Dunn. 1987. The clinical significance of inhibition of renal prostaglandin synthesis. Kidney Int. 32: 1-12
72 Henry, D., J. Page, I. Whyte, R. Nanra, C. Hall. 1997. Consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the development of
functional renal impairment in elderly subjects. Results of a case-control study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 44: 85-90
73 Murray, M. D., D. C. Brater. 1993. Renal toxicity of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 33: 435-
65
74 Whelton, A. 1999. Nephrotoxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: physiologic foundations and clinical implications. Am J
Med. 106: 13S-24S
75 DeFronzo, R. A. 1980. Hyperkalemia and hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism [clinical conference]. Kidney Int. 17: 118-34
76 Harris, R. C., J. A. McKanna, Y. Akai, H. R. Jacobson, R. N. Dubois, M. D. Breyer. 1994. Cyclooxygenase-2 is associated with the
macula densa of rat kidney and increases with salt restriction. J Clin Invest. 94: 2504-10
77 Harding, P., D. H. Sigmon, M. E. Alfie, P. L. Huang, M. C. Fishman, W. H. Beierwaltes, O. A. Carretero. 1997. Cyclooxygenase-2
mediates increased renal renin content induced by low-sodium diet. Hypertension. 29: 297-302
78 Cheng, H. F., J. L. Wang, M. Z. Zhang, Y. Miyazaki, I. Ichikawa, J. A. McKanna, R. C. Harris. 1999. Angiotensin II attenuates renal
cortical cyclooxygenase-2 expression. J Clin Invest.103: 953-61
79 Morham, S. C., R. Langenbach, L. C.D., e. al. 1995. Prostaglandin synthase-2 gene causes severe renal pathology in the mouse. Cell.
 83: 473-82
80 Dinchuk, J. E., B. D. Car, R. J. Focht, J. J. Johnston, B. D. Jaffee, M. B. Covington, N. R. Contel, V. M. Eng, R. J. Collins, P. M. Czerniak,
e. al. 1995. Renal abnormalities and an altered inflammatory response in mice lacking cyclooxygenase II. Nature. 378: 406-9
81 Langenbach, R., S. G. Morham, H. F. Tiano, C. D. Loftin, B. I. Ghanayem, P. C. Chulada, J. F. Mahler, C. A. Lee, E. H. Goulding, K. D.
Kluckman, e. al. 1995. Prostaglandin synthase 1 gene disruption in mice reduces arachidonic acid-induced inflammation and
indomethacin-induced gastric ulceration. Cell. 83: 483-92
82 Schafer, A. I. 1999. Effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy on platelets. Am J Med. 106: 25S-36S
83 Murata, T., F. Ushikubi, T. Matsuoka, M. Hirata, A. Yamasaki, Y. Sugimoto, A. Ichikawa, Y. Aze, T. Tanaka, N. Yoshida, A. Ueno, S.
Oh-ishi, S. Narumiya. 1997. Altered pain perception and inflammatory response in mice lacking prostacyclin receptor. Nature. 388:
678-682
84 McAdam, B. F., F. Catella-Lawson, I. A. Mardini, S. Kapoor, J. A. Lawson, G. A. FitzGerald. 1999. Systemic biosynthesis of prostacyclin
by cyclooxygenase (COX)-2: the human pharmacology of a selective inhibitor of COX-2 [published erratum appears in Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 1999 May 11;96(10):5890]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96: 272-7
85 Zuckerman, H., U. Reiss, I. Rubinstein. 1974. Inhibition of human premature labor by indomethacin. Obstet Gynecol. 44: 787-92
86 Hammerman, C. 1995. Patent ductus arteriosus. Clinical relevance of prostaglandins and prostaglandin inhibitors in PDA
pathophysiology and treatment. Clin Perinatol. 22: 457-79
87 1999. Celecoxib for arthritis. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 41: 11-2
88 Searle. 1999. Approved product information.
89 1999. Potential interaction: Celebrex® (celecoxib) and warfarin. FDA MedWatch Safety Information Summary. May
90 1999. Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis and pain. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 41: 59-61
91 Merck Sharp & Dohme (Aust.) Pty Ltd. 1999. Approved product information.
92 Simon, L. S., F. L. Lanza, P. E. Lipsky, R. C. Hubbard, S. Talwalker, B. D. Schwartz, P. C. Isakson, G. S. Geis. 1998. Preliminary study of
the safety and efficacy of SC-58635, a novel cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor: efficacy and safety in two placebo-controlled trials in
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and studies of gastrointestinal and platelet effects. Arthritis Rheum. 41: 1591-602
93 Saag, K., C. Fisher, J. McKay, E. Erich, P. L. Zhao, J. Bolognese, B. Seidenberg, B. Daniels. 1998. MK-0966, a specific COX-2 inhibitor,
has clinical efficacy comparable to ibuprofen in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a 6-week controlled clinical
trial. Arthritis Rheum. 41: S196
94 Cannon, G., J. Caldwell, P. Holt, B. McLean, Q. Zeng, E. Ehrich, B. Seidenberg, J. Bolognese, B. Daniels. 1998. MK-0966, a specific
COX-2 inhibitor, has clinical efficacy comparable to diclofenac in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a 26-week
controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 41: S196

Contributing authors Reviewers

Dr Stephen Kerr Associate Professor H Patrick McNeil
Decision Support Officer Department of Rheumatology
National Prescribing Service Prince of Wales Hospital
Level 1/31 Buckingham Street Dr John Dowden
Surry Hills. NSW. 2010. Editor
Ms Joy Gailer Australian Prescriber
Clinical Pharmacist
Drug and Therapeutics Information Service
Repatriation General Hospital
Daws Rd
Daws Park. SA. 5041