Risks and benefits of COX-2 inhibitors vs non-selective NSAIDs: does their cardiovascular risk exceed their gastrointestinal benefit? A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with COX-2 inhibitors may offset their gastrointestinal (GI) benefit compared with non-selective (NS) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We aimed to compare the risks of hospitalization for AMI and GI bleeding among elderly patients using COX-2 inhibitors, NS-NSAIDs and acetaminophen. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative data of patients > or =65 years of age who filled a prescription for NSAID or acetaminophen during 1999-2002. Outcomes were compared using Cox regression models with time-dependent exposures. RESULTS: Person-years of exposure among non-users of aspirin were: 75,761 to acetaminophen, 42,671 to rofecoxib 65,860 to celecoxib, and 37,495 to NS-NSAIDs. Among users of aspirin, they were: 14,671 to rofecoxib, 22,875 to celecoxib, 9,832 to NS-NSAIDs and 38,048 to acetaminophen. Among non-users of aspirin, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of hospitalization for AMI/GI vs the acetaminophen (with no aspirin) group were: rofecoxib 1.27 (1.13, 1.42), celecoxib 0.93 (0.83, 1.03), naproxen 1.59 (1.31, 1.93), diclofenac 1.17 (0.99, 1.38) and ibuprofen 1.05 (0.74, 1.51). Among users of aspirin, they were: rofecoxib 1.73 (1.52, 1.98), celecoxib 1.34 (1.19, 1.52), ibuprofen 1.51 (0.95, 2.41), diclofenac 1.69 (1.35, 2.10), naproxen 1.35 (0.97, 1.88) and acetaminophen 1.29 (1.17, 1.42). CONCLUSION: Among non-users of aspirin, naproxen seemed to carry the highest risk for AMI/GI bleeding. The AMI/GI toxicity of celecoxib was similar to that of acetaminophen and seemed to be better than those of rofecoxib and NS-NSAIDs. Among users of aspirin, both celecoxib and naproxen seemed to be the least toxic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".