Questions regarding the CONCERN trial – Authors' reply

Francis K L Chan,Jessica Y L Ching,Yee Kit Tse,Moe H Kyaw
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32428-5
IF: 202.731
2018-01-01
The Lancet
Abstract:We thank Ricky Turgeon for his Correspondence regarding our CONCERN trial1Chan FKL Ching JYL Tse YK et al.Gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with cardiothrombotic diseases and arthritis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (CONCERN): an industry-independent, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.Lancet. 2017; 389: 2375-2382Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar on the gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib plus esomeprazole versus naproxen and esomeprazole in patients with cardiothrombotic diseases and arthritis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding. His questions on the indication of aspirin use are relevant. 344 (67%) of 514 enrolled patients were receiving aspirin for secondary prevention. The remaining 170 (33%) of 514 were receiving aspirin for primary prevention, who all had a calculated 10-year risk for heart disease or stroke of more than 10%, supporting the requirement of long-term use of aspirin.2Goff Jr, DC Lloyd-Jones DM Bennett G et al.2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.Circulation. 2014; 129: S49-S73Crossref PubMed Scopus (2365) Google Scholar With respect to primary bleeding outcome and secondary severe cardiovascular events, results remained consistent between patients who continued and discontinued aspirin. Celecoxib plus esomeprazole was superior to naproxen plus esomeprazole for the prevention of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who continued aspirin, although this effect was not significant for serious cardiovascular events for those who continued aspirin and for both outcomes in patients who discontinued aspirin (appendix). Lastly, with regards to time from initial bleeding event to initiation of study drugs, all patients had a repeat endoscopy 8 weeks after index bleeding episode. If ulcer healing was confirmed endoscopically, a patient was enrolled into the study considering all inclusion criteria were met. We hope we have answered the important questions raised by Turgeon. FKLC has served as a consultant to Eisai, Pfizer, Takeda, and Otsuka; and has been paid lecture fees by Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. All other authors declare no competing interests. Download .pdf (.11 MB) Help with pdf files Supplementary appendix Gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with cardiothrombotic diseases and arthritis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (CONCERN): an industry-independent, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trialIn patients at high risk of both cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events who require concomitant aspirin and NSAID, celecoxib plus proton-pump inhibitor is the preferred treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Naproxen should be avoided despite its perceived cardiovascular safety. Full-Text PDF Questions regarding the CONCERN trialFindings from Francis Chan and colleagues' study (June 17, 2017, p 2375)1 showed a 6·7% absolute risk reduction in recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding with celecoxib plus esomeprazole compared with naproxen and esomeprazole in patients who were on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and receiving concomitant aspirin following an upper gastrointestinal bleed. Additionally, the authors reported no significant difference between groups in serious cardiovascular events (4·4% [95% CI 2·4–7·7] for patients given celecoxib plus esomeprazole vs 5·5% [3·3–9·2] for those given naproxen plus esomeprazole; p=0·543), although their study was not adequately powered to evaluate this secondary outcome. Full-Text PDF
What problem does this paper attempt to address?