Evidence Hub

Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Jing-Jing Zhang, Eric L. Ding, Yi-Qing Song

Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2006

116,094 participants · 339 citations

Abstract

CONTEXT: Adverse effects of selective cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors on renal events and arrhythmia have been controversial, with suggestions of a class effect.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively evaluate adverse risks of renal events (renal dysfunction, hypertension, and peripheral edema) and arrhythmia events and to explore drug class effects and temporal trends of apparent effects of the COX-2 inhibitors: rofecoxib, celecoxib, valdecoxib, parecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib.

DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of EMBASE and MEDLINE (through June 2006), bibliographies, US Food and Drug Administration reports, and pharmaceutical industry clinical trial databases.

STUDY SELECTION: From relevant reports, 114 randomized double-blind clinical trials were included.

DATA EXTRACTION: Information on publication year, participant characteristics, trial duration, drug, control, dose, and events were extracted using a standardized protocol.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were pooled via random-effects models and meta-regressions. Of 116 094 participants from 114 trial reports including 127 trial populations (40 rofecoxib, 37 celecoxib, 29 valdecoxib + parecoxib, 15 etoricoxib, and 6 lumiracoxib), there were a total of 6394 composite renal events (2670 peripheral edema, 3489 hypertension, 235 renal dysfunction) and 286 arrhythmia events. Results indicated significant heterogeneity of renal effects across agents (P for interaction = .02), indicating no class effect. Compared with controls,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 116,094 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free