ArticleDrug safety2005
Incidence of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients taking celecoxib compared with those taking rofecoxib: interim results from the New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme.
Article in Drug safety, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline: an intensive postmarketing prospective cohort study in New Zealand.Drug safety · 2011Article
- Temporal relationship between use of NSAIDs, including selective COX-2 inhibitors, and cardiovascular risk.Drug safety · 2006Article
- A comparison of reported gastrointestinal and thromboembolic events between rofecoxib and celecoxib using observational data.Drug safety · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRofecoxib was withdrawn from the market worldwide because of concerns relating to cardiovascular safety. There is conflicting evidence as to whether celecoxib, the most popular alternative to rofecoxib, carries the same cardiovascular risks. This study's aim was to compare the incidence of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients taking celecoxib with patients taking rofecoxib.
methodsPrescription event monitoring methodology was used in this prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study, in which cohorts of patients were established from prescription data and thrombotic cardiovascular events were identified from follow-up questionnaires to patients' doctors and other sources. SUBJECTS: New Zealand patients with at least one prescription for either rofecoxib or celecoxib between 1 December 2000 and 30 November 2001. ANALYSIS: For this interim analysis the total cohorts were separated into three groups at different stages of follow-up: complete, incomplete and no follow-up. Cox's proportional hazards models were applied to calculate hazard ratios for celecoxib compared with rofecoxib.
resultsThe total cohorts included 26,403 patients receiving rofecoxib and 32,446 patients receiving celecoxib. 4882 (18%) rofecoxib and 6267 (19%) celecoxib patients had been completely followed up. In this group the unadjusted hazard ratio for celecoxib compared with rofecoxib was 1.07 (95% CI 0.59, 1.93). After adjustment for age this hazard ratio was 0.94 (95% CI 0.51, 1.70). Further adjustment for sex, 'as required' use, indication for use, concomitant NSAID use and pre-existing cardiovascular disease resulted in only minor changes to the hazard ratio.
conclusionThis interim analysis of the Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme data suggests that in 'real-life' postmarketing use in New Zealand there is no significant difference in the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients taking celecoxib compared with those taking rofecoxib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.