European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 169–175 | Cite as

Outcome trials of COX-2 selective inhibitors: global safety evaluation does not promise benefits

  • Jorge Gomez Cerezo
  • Rubin Lubomirov HristovEmail author
  • Antonio J. Carcas Sansuán
  • Juan J. Vázquez Rodríguez
Debate Article



Gastrointestinal toxicity is the most frequent adverse effect associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. The most clinically relevant side effects of this toxicity are ulcer complications, including perforation, obstruction, or bleeding. Selective cyclooxygenase (COX-2) inhibitors (coxibs) have been proposed as a safer alternative to traditional, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and they are currently widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to analyze the available evidence and then critically evaluate the outcome trials supporting the use of coxibs in terms of their clinical gastrointestinal benefits and global safety.


All published clinical trials on selective COX-2 inhibitors were identified by searching Medline, the World Wide Web (WWW), and abstracts in Congress proceedings. From these, we selected randomized trials that clinically evaluated relevant safety outcome measures. Papers only describing endoscopic evaluation were excluded.


Our search yielded three outcome trials and two pooled safety analyses. The outcome studies supporting the gastrointestinal and global safety of coxibs were found to be biased in their design, analysis, and dissemination, and interpretation of a clinical benefit. Cost considerations would make the use of coxibs acceptable only in patients at high gastrointestinal risk.


The association of the reduced gastroerosive potential of coxibs with improved meaningful outcomes is debatable. Bias in the design of the trials, selection of outcome measures, post-hoc changes in analysis and the variables used, as well as flaws in the publication and reporting of trial results cast serious doubts on the gastrointestinal and global safety profile of coxibs. In addition, their high cost and the lack of clear identification of patients that would benefit most from treatment means the effectiveness of these drugs is uncertain at the moment.


COX-2 selective inhibitors Outcome trials Gastrointestinal safety Global safety Gastroprotective cotherapy Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. 


  1. 1.
    Singh G (1998) Recent considerations in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy. Am J Med 105(1B):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCarthy D (1998) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related gastrointestinal toxicity: definitions and epidemiology. Am J Med 105(5A):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laine L (2001) Approaches to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in the high-risk patient. Gastroenterology 120:594–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silverstein FE, Graham DY, Senior JR et al. (1995) Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 123:241–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silverstein FE, Faich G, Goldstein JL et al. (2000) Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: a randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. JAMA 284:1247–1255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A et al. (2000) Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N Engl J Med 343:1520–1528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldstein JL, Silverstein FE, Agrawal NM et al. (2000) Reduced risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications with celecoxib, a novel COX-2 inhibitor. Am J Gastroenterol 95:1681–1690Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langman MJ, Jensen DM, Watson DJ et al. (1999) Adverse upper gastrointestinal effects of rofecoxib compared with NSAIDs. JAMA 282:1929–1933PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein JL, Correa P, Zhao WW et al. (2001) Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers with celecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, compared with naproxen in patients with arthritis. Am J Gastroenterol 96:1019–1027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hawkey C, Laine L, Simon T et al. (2000) Comparison of the effect of rofecoxib (a cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor), ibuprofen, and placebo on the gastroduodenal mucosa of patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Rofecoxib Osteoarthritis Endoscopy Multinational Study Group. Arthritis Rheum 43:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FDA Advisory Committee (2000). Celecoxib Medical Officer's Gastroenterology Review (CLASS Study). Scholar
  12. 12.
    FDA Advisory Committee (2000). Celecoxib Statistical Review (CLASS study). Scholar
  13. 13.
    FDA Advisory Committee (2000). Rofecoxib Statistical Review (VIGOR study). Scholar
  14. 14.
    FDA Advisory Committee (2000). Celecoxib Medical Officer Review (CLASS study). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldstein JL, Eisen GM, Stenson W et al. (2001) Significant reduction in serious upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events with celecoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, compared with conventional NSAIDs. The SUCCESS I Trial (abstract). Gastroenterology 120:105Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jüni P, Rutjes AW, Dieppe PA (2002) Pharmacia addresses June 1 editorial regarding CLASS study: authors' response. BMJ 325:163–164Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geis GS (2002) Are selective COX-2 inhibitors superior to traditional NSAIDs? Pharmacia's response to editorial. BMJ 325:161–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jüni P, Rutjes AWS, Dieppe PA (2002) Are selective COX-2 inhibitors superior to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? (editorial) BMJ 324:1287–1288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deeks JJ, Smith LA, Bradley MD (2002) Efficacy, tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 325:619–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright JM (2002) A missed opportunity (electronic response to: Deeks et al. 2002 Efficacy, tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 325:619–623) BMJ (accessed 22 November 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jüni P, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA (2002) Problems compromising the review's validity. (electronic response to: Deeks et al. 2002 Efficacy, tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 325:619–623) BMJ (accessed 22 November 2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones R (2002) Efficacy and safety of COX-2 inhibitors. New data are encouraging but the risk-benefit ratio remains unclear (editorial). BMJ 325:607–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright JM (2002) The double-edged sword of COX-2 selective NSAIDs. CMAJ 167:1131–1137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G (1994) Completeness of reporting trials results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet 343:1209–1211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shield MJ, Morant SV (1996) Misoprostol in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (letter). BMJ 312:846Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mamdani M, Rochon P, Laupacis A, Anderson G (2002) Initial patterns of use of COX-2 inhibitors by elderly patients in Ontario: findings and implications. CMAJ 167:1125–1126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mamdani M, Rochon PA, Juurlink DN et al. (2002) Observational study of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in elderly patients given selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. BMJ 325:624–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Villa LF (ed) (2001) Medimecum: guía de terapia farmacológica, 6th edn. Adis, MadridGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chan FKL, Chung SCS, Suen BY et al. (2001) Preventing recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection who are taking low-dose aspirin or naproxen. N Engl J Med 344:967–973PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marshall JK, Pellissier JM, Attard CL, Kong SX, Marentette MA (2001) Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis comparing rofecoxib with nonselective NSAIDs on osteoarthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 19:1039–1049PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moore, RA, Phillips CJ, Pellissier JM, Kong SX (2001) Health economics comparisons of rofecoxib versus conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 4:1–7Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Burke TA, Zabinski RA, Pettitt D, Maniadakis N, Maurath CJ, Goldstein JL (2001) A framework for evaluating the clinical consequences of initial therapy with NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, or celecoxib in the treatment of arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics (Suppl 1) 19:33–47Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peterson WL, Cryer B (1999) COX-1-Sparing NSAIDs Is the enthusiasm justified? (editorial) JAMA 282:1961-1963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mayordomo J (2002) Sanidad extiende a toda España un modelo andaluz de control de recetas: La medida se aplicará a los antiinflamatorios Vioxx y Celebrex. El País 19 June, p 42Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dirección General de Farmacia y Productos Sanitarios (DGFPS) (2002) Resolución que establece la necesidad de visado de inspección previo a su dispensación con cargo al Sistema Nacional de Salud para las especialidades de Celebrex y Vioxx. Ministrerio de Sanidad y Consumo. 17 June 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Gomez Cerezo
    • 1
  • Rubin Lubomirov Hristov
    • 2
    Email author
  • Antonio J. Carcas Sansuán
    • 3
  • Juan J. Vázquez Rodríguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, School of MedicineAutonomous University of Madrid and Service of Internal MedicineMadridSpain
  2. 2.Servicio de Farmacología ClínicaHospital Universitario "La Paz"MadridSpain
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, School of MedicineAutonomous University of Madrid and Service of Clinical PharmacologyMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations