MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148541944 · doi:10.1345/aph.1g733

Does Celecoxib Potentiate the Anticoagulant Effect of Warfarin? A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

2006· article· en· W2148541944 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Dentali, James D. Douketis, Karen Woods, Lehana Thabane, Gary Foster, Anne Holbrook, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCelecoxibWarfarinAnesthesiaCrossover studyRandomized controlled trialAnticoagulantCodeineRofecoxibAnalgesicInternal medicinePlaceboCyclooxygenaseAtrial fibrillationMorphine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The management of patients who are receiving warfarin therapy and have musculoskeletal problems that require treatment with a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) is problematic because NSAID use may increase the risk for bleeding. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective NSAIDs such as celecoxib may be less likely to promote gastrointestinal bleeding; however, there are concerns that they could potentiate the anticoagulation effect of warfarin. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether celecoxib potentiates the anticoagulant effect of warfarin, as measured by the international normalized ratio (INR). METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled, crossover trial to assess the effect on INR of celecoxib versus codeine (control treatment) in 15 patients who were receiving warfarin therapy and required analgesic treatment for osteoarthritis. During Phase 1 of the study, patients were randomly allocated to receive celecoxib 200 mg/day or codeine phosphate 7-15 mg 3-4 times daily for 5 weeks. During Phase 2 of the study, patients stopped the first study medication and started the other study medication; there was no drug-free interval between phases. Weekly INR testing was performed during the 10 week study period. Adopting the intent-to-treat principle, we used generalized estimating equations to analyze the data. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean INR values during each 5 week treatment period when patients received either celecoxib or codeine. There was, therefore, insufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that these 2 treatments had an equal effect on the INR (mean difference [95% CI] 0.10 [-0.04 to 0.24]; p = 0.16) based on mean imputation. This finding was confirmed after we repeated the analysis with multiple imputations (mean difference [95% CI] 0.093 [-0.16 to 0.35]; p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that treatment with celecoxib does not potentiate the INR when taken with warfarin. Larger randomized trials are warranted to address the effects of coadministered warfarin and celecoxib on clinical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207