NSAID warning by FDA

the FDA just reinforced their existing warning label on the use of non-aspirin NSAIDs and the increased chance of heart attack or stroke (this warning is already on the over-the-counter ones). their comments:

--the risk of heart attack or stroke can occur within the first weeks of taking NSAIDs
--the risk is greater with higher doses
--although they acknowledge that newer information suggests some differences in NSAID risk, they do not feel it is sufficient to attribute either higher or lower risk to any individual agent
--the increased heart attack/stroke risk is not limited to those with known heart disease or increased risk factors form heart disease, though since their absolute risk is higher in general, they have greater risk of NSAID-induced heart attack or stroke
--those with known heart disease or risk factors are even more likely to die of a heart attack or stroke in the first year after their heart attack
--there is increased risk of heart failure with NSAIDs

those of you who have been reading these blogs for awhile know that I have real concerns about the overuse of a couple of drug classes in particular: PPIs and NSAIDs.  This link goes through some of the details from a Danish study -- http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2015/03/nsaids-post-mi.html and includes some of the data suggesting that there are significant differences between the different NSAIDs. Though I use them quite sparingly, I think the data supporting naproxen over the others is pretty good. However, a large impetus to my doing lots of steroid injections, especially in the elderly, is to spare using systemic NSAIDs (this includes not just joint injections for OA, gout, pauciarticular RA, tendinitis, but I have also had great outcomes at time from injecting discrete back muscle spasms). I also use more topical drugs (topical capsaicin, diclofenac, lidocaine).

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more