Patient satisfaction and experience with intravenously administered C1-inhibitor concentrates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder with substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite expanded choices for effective acute treatment, prophylactic options are more limited. Intravenous C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH[IV]) is licensed and used to prevent HAE symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To better understand patient experiences with using C1-INH(IV), including level of satisfaction and types and frequency of complications. METHODS: Fifty adult members (≥18 years of age) of the US HAE Association who had HAE type I or II completed a self-administered internet survey. Eligible participants were experiencing at least 1 HAE attack per month and must have been receiving treatment with C1-INH(IV) as prophylaxis or acute therapy. RESULTS: Almost all respondents (n = 47; 94%) were using C1-INH(IV) for HAE prophylaxis. Most patients reported administration of C1-INH(IV) through a peripheral vein (n = 34) and 19 were currently (n = 17) or previously (n = 2) using a central venous port. Most respondents (62%) who used a peripheral vein to administer treatment reported having difficulty finding a usable vein or getting the infusion to work properly at least some of the time. Issues accessing veins, exhausted veins, and frequency of attacks were the main reasons physicians recommended ports to respondents. Although ports allow easier administration of therapy, 47% of respondents with ports experienced problems such as occlusion, thrombosis, and infection. Respondents using C1-INH prophylaxis reported a mean of 2.3 attacks per month during the previous 6 months. CONCLUSION: The survey results identified clinical challenges with IV HAE medication use, including venous access issues and ongoing monthly attack occurrence despite prophylactic C1-INH(IV) administration.

An algorithm to identify medical practices common to both the General Practice Research Database and The Health Improvement Network database.

PURPOSE: To identify practices common to both the General Practice Research Database and The Health Improvement Network database for purposes of combining the databases for analysis without duplicate records. METHODS: We developed two independent algorithms to identify practices common to the two databases. The first used the total number of patients in the therapy and clinical data sets and the total number of etoricoxib and celecoxib users each year during the study period. The second used the total number of patients stratified by gender and four different categories of birth year. Further checking of potential matched practice pairs identified by the two algorithms was performed by comparing the patient-level medical records by birth year, dates of clinical visits, and diagnosis codes. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve potential matched pairs of practices were found by both algorithms. Fifteen additional potential pairs were matched by only one algorithm: 13 by algorithm 1 (A1) only and 2 by algorithm 2 (A2) only. The examination of the patient-level visit dates and diagnosis codes for the matches revealed that all of the 327 potential pairs of duplicate practices were in fact the same practice in the two databases. CONCLUSIONS: The two algorithms successfully found the practices common to the two different databases without de-identifying the practices. The identification of the common practices allows for combining the two databases without duplicate records to create a larger data set for analysis, with 168 more practices than when using the General Practice Research Database alone, or with 268 more practices than when using The Health Improvement Network alone. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Patients' experiences of niacin-induced flushing in clinical practice: a structured telephone interview.

BACKGROUND: Niacin is highly effective at raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol but remains underused because of the adverse event of flushing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the incidence and severity of niacin-induced flushing and their relationship to niacin discontinuation and skipping or delaying niacin doses in clinical practice. The use of aspirin to avoid niacin-induced flushing was also assessed. METHODS: Structured telephone interviews were performed with patients identified from administrative claims data as having newly initiated niacin. The main outcome measures were rate and severity of flushing, association between flushing and niacin discontinuation, and rate of prophylactic aspirin use to avoid flushing. Flushing was evaluated on a scale of none, mild, moderate, severe, and extreme. RESULTS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 500 patients who had newly initiated niacin. The patients interviewed were predominantly white men with at least some college education and a mean (SD) age of 55.0 (10.9) years. The mean (SD) time between therapy initiation and interview was 9.3 (3.3) months. At the time of the interview, 27.2% of respondents reported having discontinued niacin ("discontinuers"; n = 136), with a mean duration of niacin use of 4.3 months, and 72.8% continued taking niacin ("continuers"; n = 364). Approximately 91.2% (124/136) of niacin discontinuers and 82.1% (299/364) of continues reported experiencing flushing symptoms (P = 0.013), and 54.4% of discontinuers versus 20.9% of continuers experienced severe or extreme flushing (P < 0.001). Significantly more discontinuers (79.4%) than continuers (58.0%) reported that the greatest degree of flushing they could tolerate was "mild" or "moderate" (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression indicated that flushing symptom severity was a strong predictor of discontinuation as compared with no flushing symptoms (severe: odds ratio [OR], 3.19; 95% CI, 1.43-7.15; extreme: OR, 11.29; 95% CI, 4.20-30.39). Similar percentages of discontinuers and continuers reported both receiving a physician's advice to take prophylactic aspirin (42.0% vs 49.5%, respectively; P = NS) and actually taking aspirin regardless of what their physicians advised (36.0% vs 43.7%; P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Severe or extreme symptoms of flushing, which occurred in about one third of patients newly treated with niacin, were associated with discontinuation of this otherwise highly effective therapy. Less than half of patients reported being advised by their physician to take prophylactic aspirin or took aspirin regardless of their physician's recommendation to avoid niacin-induced flushing symptoms.

Recommendations for safety planning, data collection, evaluation and reporting during drug, biologic and vaccine development: a report of the safety planning, evaluation, and reporting team.

BACKGROUND: The Safety Planning, Evaluation and Reporting Team (SPERT) was formed in 2006 by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PURPOSE: SPERT's goal was to propose a pharmaceutical industry standard for safety planning, data collection, evaluation, and reporting, beginning with planning first-in-human studies and continuing through the planning of the post-product-approval period. METHODS: SPERT's recommendations are based on our review of relevant literature and on consensus reached in our discussions. RESULTS: An important recommendation is that sponsors create a Program Safety Analysis Plan early in development. We also give recommendations for the planning of repeated, cumulative meta-analyses of the safety data obtained from the studies conducted within the development program. These include clear definitions of adverse events of special interest and standardization of many aspects of data collection and study design. We describe a 3-tier system for signal detection and analysis of adverse events and highlight proposals for reducing "false positive" safety findings. We recommend that sponsors review the aggregated safety data on a regular and ongoing basis throughout the development program, rather than waiting until the time of submission. LIMITATIONS: We recognize that there may be other valid approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The proactive approach we advocate has the potential to benefit patients and health care providers by providing more comprehensive safety information at the time of new product marketing and beyond.

Effects of laropiprant on nicotinic acid-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidemia.

Niacin (nicotinic acid) is not optimally used mainly because of flushing, a process mediated primarily by prostaglandin D(2), which leads to poor patient compliance and suboptimal dosing. This phase II dose-ranging study was designed to assess whether the prostaglandin D(2) receptor 1 antagonist laropiprant (LRPT; MK-0524) would (1) reduce extended-release niacin (ERN)-induced flushing in dyslipidemic patients and (2) support a novel accelerated ERN dosing paradigm: initiating ERN at 1 g and advancing rapidly to 2 g. In part A of the study, 154 dyslipidemic patients were randomized to LRPT 150 mg/day or placebo in a 9-week, 2-period crossover study. Patients who completed part A (n = 122) entered part B (after a 2-week washout), together with additional patients who entered part B directly (n = 290). Part B patients were randomized to placebo, ERN 1 g (Niaspan, no previous titration), or ERN 1 g coadministered with LRPT 18.75, 37.5, 75, or 150 mg for 4 weeks, with doubling of the respective doses for the remaining 4 weeks. Patients treated with LRPT plus ERN experienced significantly less ERN-induced flushing than those treated with ERN alone during the initiation of treatment (ERN 1 g, week 1) and the maintenance treatment (ERN 1 to 2 g, weeks 2 to 8). All doses of LRPT were maximally effective in inhibiting niacin-induced flushing. LRPT did not alter the beneficial lipid effects of ERN. LRPT plus ERN was well tolerated. In conclusion, the significant reduction in ERN-induced flushing provided by LRPT plus ERN supports an accelerated ERN dose-advancement paradigm to achieve rapidly a 2-g dose in dyslipidemic patients.

Hepatic effects of lovastatin exposure in patients with liver disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the potential adverse hepatic effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ('statins') in patients with existing liver disease; therefore, we examined the risk of liver toxicity with lovastatin exposure in these patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a large integrated health plan in Northern California, USA. Patients with laboratory or clinical evidence of liver disease were identified and their exposure to lovastatin was determined. The primary outcome was a pattern of liver-test abnormalities associated with a poor prognosis among patients with drug-induced liver disease, based on Hy's Rule. Secondary outcomes included liver injury (defined as moderate or severe, depending on the degree of ALT level elevations) or the development of either clinical cirrhosis or liver failure. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated and multivariate analyses conducted using extended Cox models. RESULTS: A total of 93 106 patients met the entry criteria. Lovastatin exposure was associated with a lower incidence of all endpoints, including the primary outcome (IRR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.12, 0.55), moderate liver injury (IRR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.47, 0.65), severe liver injury (IRR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29, 0.81) and the occurrence of either cirrhosis or liver failure (IRR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.21, 0.38); adjustment for age and sex resulted in some attenuation of this reduction in incidence. The observed effects were generally consistent across a range of baseline liver-disease diagnoses and greater cumulative lovastatin exposure was associated with fewer outcome events for some endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, exposure to lovastatin was not associated with an increased risk of adverse hepatic outcomes. These results do not support concern regarding lovastatin-related hepatotoxicity in patients with existing liver disease.

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among patients with hereditary angioedema in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on usage and associated outcomes with hereditary angioedema (HAE)-specific medications introduced to the United States (US) market since 2009 are very limited. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate real-world treatment patterns of HAE-specific medications in the US and to assess their impact on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This analysis used IMS PharMetrics PlusTM database records (2006-2014) of patients with HAE, ≥1 insurance claim for an HAE-specific medication, and continuous insurance enrollment for ≥3 months following the first HAE prescription claim. RESULTS: Of 631 total patients, 434 (68.8%) reported C1-INH(IV) use; 396 (62.8%) reported using ecallantide and/or icatibant. There were 306 episodes of prophylactic use of C1-INH(IV) (defined by continuous refills averaging ≥1500 IU/week for ≥13 weeks) in 155 patients; use of ≥1 on-demand rescue medication was implicated during 53% (163/306) of those episodes. Sixty-eight (20.2%) of 336 C1-INH(IV) users eligible for the HCRU analysis were hospitalized at least once, and 191 (56.8%) visited the emergency department (ED). Eighteen patients (5.4%) had a central venous access device (CVAD); of these, 5 (27.7%) required hospitalization and 14 (77.7%) had an ED visit. The adjusted relative risk of hospitalization and/or ED visits for patients with a CVAD was 2.6 (95% CI: 0.17, 39.23) compared to C1-INH(IV) users without a CVAD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread availability of modern HAE medications in the US, we identified a subset of patients requiring long-term prophylaxis who continue to be burdened by frequent rescue medication usage and/or complications related to the use of CVADs for intravenous HAE medication.

Health-Related Quality of Life with Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor for Prevention of Attacks of Hereditary Angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess HRQoL outcomes in patients self-administering subcutaneous C1-INH (C1-INH[SC]; HAEGARDA) for routine prevention of HAE attacks. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data from the placebo-controlled, crossover phase III COMPACT study (Clinical Studies for Optimal Management of Preventing Angioedema with Low-Volume Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor Replacement Therapy). Ninety patients with C1-INH-HAE were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment sequences: C1-INH(SC) 40 or 60 IU/kg twice weekly for 16 weeks, preceded or followed by 16 weeks of twice weekly placebo injections. All HAE attacks were treated with open-label on-demand treatment as necessary. HRQoL assessments at week 14 (last visit) included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). RESULTS: Compared with placebo (on-demand treatment alone), treatment with twice weekly C1-INH(SC) (both doses combined) was associated with better EQ-5D visual analog scale general health, less HADS anxiety, less WPAI presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment, and greater TSQM effectiveness and overall treatment satisfaction. More patients self-reported a "good/excellent" response during routine prevention with C1-INH(SC) compared with on-demand only (placebo prophylaxis) management. For each HRQoL measure, a greater proportion of patients had a clinically meaningful improvement during C1-INH(SC) treatment compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with frequent HAE attacks, a treatment strategy of routine prevention with self-administered twice weekly C1-INH(SC) had a greater impact on improving multiple HAE-related HRQoL impairments, most notably anxiety and work productivity, compared with on-demand treatment alone (placebo prophylaxis).

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of prostate cancer in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory and epidemiologic studies suggest that aspirin and nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) reduce the risk of cancer, possibly via inhibition of the cyclooxygenase enzymes. We evaluated the association of aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs with subsequent prostate cancer in a prospective study. We also assessed whether use of these drugs influences serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration. METHODS: Participants were 1,244 male members of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Use of prescription and over-the-counter drugs was collected by questionnaire and interview at multiple study visits. One hundred forty-one prostate cancer cases diagnosed between 1980 and May 2004 were confirmed by medical record review. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the rate ratio (RR) of prostate cancer updating drug use over time and taking into account age and year. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate age-adjusted geometric mean PSA concentration by aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs use among 933 of the men without prostate cancer, for whom 3,749 PSA measurements in archived sera had been done previously. RESULTS: On 46.0% and 21.5% of the visits, current use of aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs (mostly ibuprofen) was reported, respectively. The RRs of prostate cancer comparing ever to never use were 0.76 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.54-1.07] for aspirin, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.54-1.16) for nonaspirin NSAIDs, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.02) for either medication. The association for ever use of either aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs was suggestively more pronounced in men <70 years (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.03) than in men >/=70 years (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.22; P(interaction) = 0.73). The RR for current use of either drug was attenuated relative to ever use. Mean PSA concentration did not differ between users and nonusers of either aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs (1.01 versus 0.98 ng/mL, P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, men, in particular younger men, who had ever used aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs had a modest nonstatistically significant lower risk of prostate cancer. The modest inverse association was unlikely due to detection bias that might have resulted if anti-inflammatory drugs had influenced serum PSA concentration.

The incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse events in clinical trials of etoricoxib vs. non-selective NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In spite of numerous studies demonstrating the serious gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), many patients at high GI risk continue to receive prescriptions for these drugs, often without gastroprotective agents. Etoricoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, was developed to provide similar efficacy and less GI toxicity than non-selective NSAIDs. We compared the incidence of upper GI Perforations, symptomatic gastroduodenal Ulcers, and upper GI Bleeding (PUBs) in a combined analysis of all randomized, double-blind, clinical trials of chronic treatment with etoricoxib versus NSAIDs completed by June 2003. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data for 5441 individual subjects with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis were pooled from all 10 multinational etoricoxib trials completed by June 2003. Information on suspected PUBs was prospectively collected in all protocols, and all investigator-reported PUBs were judged by a blinded, external adjudication committee using pre-specified criteria. PUBs were analyzed using COX proportional hazards models using terms for treatment and known PUB risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of confirmed PUBs among patients treated with etoricoxib 60 mg, 90 mg, or 120 mg (combined N=3226) was compared to that among patients treated with ibuprofen, diclofenac, or naproxen (combined N=2215). RESULTS: The incidence of PUBs over 44.3 months was significantly lower with etoricoxib vs. NSAIDs [cumulative incidence 1.24% vs. 2.48%, p < 0.001; rate/100 patient-years 1.00 vs. 2.47; relative risk 0.48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32, 0.73]. Results of analysis of events occurring during the first year of treatment and subgroup analyses were consistent with the primary result. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with etoricoxib was associated with a significantly lower incidence of PUBs than was treatment with non-selective NSAIDs. The difference was consistent in subgroups of patients defined by a variety of known risk factors.

Lower risk of thromboembolic cardiovascular events with naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Naproxen strongly inhibits platelet aggregation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the risk of acute thromboembolic cardiovascular events (TCEs) (myocardial infarction, sudden death, and stroke) with current naproxen use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We studied patients aged 40 to 79 years with rheumatoid arthritis in the British General Practice Research Database, excluding those with a prior TCE and potentially confounding conditions. We matched up to 4 controls by sex, age, and site of medical practice to cases with first incident TCEs. The case diagnosis date was designated as the index date for each case and his or her controls. We categorized naproxen according to the most recent prescription prior to the index date as being current (< or =30 days), past (> 30 days but < 365 days), or none (> or =365 days before index date). Using conditional logistic regression, we conducted a matched case-control analysis with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 809 cases. Current naproxen use was more common among controls (5.7%) than cases (3.2%). Adjusting for calendar year of treatment start, systemic corticosteroid use, diabetes, and comorbidity, we found that the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for current naproxen use was 0.61 (0.39-0.94) while that for past use was 0.87 (0.65-1.16). Secondary and sensitivity analyses supported these results. CONCLUSIONS: In this case-control study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a current prescription for naproxen had a reduced risk of acute major TCEs relative to those with no naproxen prescription in the past year. These results are consistent with the ability of naproxen to inhibit platelet aggregation.

Dose-effect relationships of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Many clinicians believe that higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are more effective than lower doses for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) but are associated with higher rates of adverse events (AEs). However, there is a lack of consensus on dose-effect relationships with the NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to investigate evidence for the relationship between NSAID dose, efficacy, and the occurrence of AEs from clinical trials of RA and OA of the hip and knee. METHODS: Relevant English-language publications were identified through a search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and REFLINE using the terms aceclofenac, diclofenac, etodolac, ibuprofen, isoxicam, lornoxicam, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, piroxicam, tenidap, tenoxicam, arthritis, OA (hip and knee), RA, rheumatic disorders, and musculoskeletal disorders for the period January 1970 to December 1997 (this review was conducted in 1998). Bibliographies of retrieved publications were reviewed for other potentially relevant articles. Selected publications were evaluated for quality (likelihood of bias) based on 4 factors (randomization procedure; completeness of patient and treatment information; standardization and completeness of outcome data; and reporting of attrition data). RESULTS: This review included 99 publications concerning clinical trials conducted in 24 countries and enrolling 28,239 patients. The majority of reports were published in the 1990s, particularly in the latter half of that decade. The average quality of the publications improved over time, with a significant increase in mean quality score from 5.43 in the 1970s to 9.21 during the last half of the 1990s (P < 0.05). Only 8 reports directly compared high and low doses of the same drug in relation to efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the relationship of NSAID dose to efficacy and the incidence of AEs were limited. There is a need for clinical trials directly addressing dose-effect relationships of NSAIDs, as well as reviews of more current literature and reports in languages other than English.

An observational, retrospective, cohort study of dosing patterns for rofecoxib and celecoxib in the treatment of arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed prescribing patterns for rofecoxib and celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as well as differences in prescribing patterns across physician specialties. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, cohort study of a large, US pharmacy claims database. Eligible patients were initiating therapy with rofecoxib or celecoxib and had succeeds, equals 90 days' supply of medication, as well as > or =1 medical claim specific to OA or RA between June 1, 2000, and May 31, 2001. Analyses were stratified according to diagnosis, prescribing physician specialty, and patient demographics. The main outcome measure was mean daily usage (ie, mean daily dose [milligrams]; mean number of pills per day; and mean daily consumption [denoted as DACON], calculated as daily dose divided by most frequently prescribed strength). This was primarily a descriptive study. Tests of statistical significance were not performed because the large sample size would have rendered small differences significant. RESULTS: A total of 58,574 patients with OA (81.8% [n=47,935]) or RA (18.2% [n=10,639]) received 220,627 prescriptions for rofecoxib or celecoxib (47.7% [n=27, 924] and 52.3% [n=30, 650] of patients, respectively) during the study period. Overall, the most frequently prescribed strengths were rofecoxib 25 mg and celecoxib 200 mg. In both OA and RA, the most frequently prescribed mean daily dose of rofecoxib was 25 mg. In OA, the most frequently prescribed mean daily dose of celecoxib was 200 mg; in RA, it was 400 mg. Both pills per day and DACON were higher for celecoxib than rofecoxib. The DACON for rofecoxib was unrelated to physician specialty. Rheumatologists prescribed celecoxib at 20% to 40% higher mean daily doses than did primary care physicians, orthopedic specialists, or other specialists. Regardless of physician specialty, the DACON appeared higher for patients with RA than OA, for men than women, and for younger (aged <65 years) than older patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, relative to the most frequently prescribed strength, celecoxib-treated patients with OA and RA had higher DACONs than rofecoxib-treated OA and RA patients across all subgroups. These observations may have economic implications in terms of direct effects on cost and the need for formularies to consider overall use patterns in addition to pill costs. However, these conclusions are limited by lack of clinical information (other than an OA or RA diagnosis), inability to ascertain actual use, and potential for selection bias.

The upper gastrointestinal safety of rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are nonspecific cyclo-oxygenase (COX-1/COX-2) inhibitors and are associated with gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity attributable to COX-1 inhibition. Rofecoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, was developed to provide similar efficacy and less GI toxicity than NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE: To update the results of a previously performed analysis of the incidence of upper GI perforations, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers, and upper GI bleeding (PUBs) with rofecoxib compared with non-selective NSAIDs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared the incidence of PUBs in a combined analysis of 20 randomized, double-blind, clinical trials of rofecoxib versus NSAIDs. Men and women (N = 17,072) from multinational trial sites with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were studied. There was no upper age limit in any of the trials. Investigator-reported PUBs were reviewed by a blinded, external adjudication committee using pre-specified criteria. The incidence of confirmed PUBs, the main outcome measure, among patients treated with rofecoxib 12.5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg (combined, N = 10 026) was compared to that among patients treated with ibuprofen, diclofenac, nabumetone, or naproxen (combined, N = 7046). RESULTS: The incidence of PUBs over 24.8 months was significantly lower with rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs (cumulative incidence 1.6% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001; rate/100 patient-years 0.74 vs. 1.87; relative risk 0.36, 95% CI 0.24, 0.54). Results of subgroup analyses and comparisons of rofecoxib with individual NSAID comparators were consistent with the primary result, as was an analysis in patients with no PUB risk factors. DISCUSSION: The analysis demonstrated a consistently lower incidence of confirmed PUBs with rofecoxib than with NSAIDs over 24.8 months. These results confirm those of a previous smaller combined analysis of clinical trials with rofecoxib vs. non-selective NSAIDs in OA patients only, in which the risk reduction for confirmed PUBs was approximately 50%. In addition, this analysis demonstrated risk reductions with rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs in risk subgroups and in patients who did not have any known risk factors for PUBs consistent with the primary result. Some of the studies in this analysis required scheduled endoscopies. Asymptomatic upper GI ulcers or bleeding diagnosed during scheduled procedures were not included in the primary endpoint, which may have caused a bias against rofecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rofecoxib was associated with a statistically significantly (p < 0.001) lower incidence of PUBs than was treatment with NSAIDs. The difference was maintained in subgroups of patients with risk factors, as well as in those with no risk factors, for PUBs.

Utilization patterns of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors among patients with arthritis in a managed care setting.

When anti-inflammatory/analgesic agents are not well tolerated, patients with arthritis may be prescribed a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. Since these patients often require daily treatment and COX-2 inhibitors are more expensive than nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, it is important to assess their patterns of use. In this retrospective study, rofecoxib and celecoxib were compared, in a managed care population with arthritis, in terms of average daily medication consumption and cost. Celecoxib was found to be significantly more costly than rofecoxib, and certain factors, such as the treating physician's specialty, correlated with prescribing patterns. Given the high prevalence of arthritic conditions, these results suggest that the selection of a COX-2 inhibitor may substantially affect health care costs.

Evaluating emergency medical services: controlling the rising cost of saving lives.

A combination of recent changes in the way Emergency Medical Services are reimbursed by Medicare for ambulance services and escalating costs have prompted many EMS providers to seek new ways to meet the needs of the communities they serve in a more cost-effective manner. This article reports one such study of a county in the Southeastern United States with a population of over 100,000 distributed over an area of 600 square miles. The study used industrial techniques, including a combination of historical data analysis and time studies, to recommend ways to cut costs without adversely affecting either the emergency coverage or patient case provided. Based on usage data, reducing the number of service units during time of least demand was suggested. The time studies indicated that it might be possible to combine some jobs (e.g. billing personnel and dispatchers), The usage data also showed that the existing geographical distribution of the units matched demand. The study demonstrated that industrial engineering techniques can be usefully employed in the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.

Application of the OMERACT filter to measures of core outcome domains in recent clinical studies of acute gout.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which instruments that measure core outcome domains in acute gout fulfill the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter requirements of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. METHODS: Patient-level data from 4 randomized controlled trials of agents designed to treat acute gout and 1 observational study of acute gout were analyzed. For each available measure, construct validity, test-retest reliability, within-group change using effect size, between-group change using the Kruskall-Wallis statistic, and repeated measures generalized estimating equations were assessed. Floor and ceiling effects were also assessed and minimal clinically important difference was estimated. These analyses were presented to participants at OMERACT 11 to help inform voting for possible endorsement. RESULTS: There was evidence for construct validity and discriminative ability for 3 measures of pain [0 to 4 Likert, 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS), 0 to 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS)]. Likewise, there appears to be sufficient evidence for a 4-point Likert scale to possess construct validity and discriminative ability for physician assessment of joint swelling and joint tenderness. There was some evidence for construct validity and within-group discriminative ability for the Health Assessment Questionnaire as a measure of activity limitations, but not for discrimination between groups allocated to different treatment. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient evidence to support measures of pain (using Likert, NRS, or VAS), joint tenderness, and swelling (using Likert scale) as fulfilling the requirements of the OMERACT filter. Further research on a measure of activity limitations in acute gout clinical trials is required.

A measure of treatment response: patient and physician satisfaction with traditional NSAIDs for osteoarthritis control.

PURPOSE: The clinical response to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) varies substantially. The objective of this study was to describe physicians' and patients' perceptions of response to tNSAIDs as measured by satisfaction with control of patients' osteoarthritis (OA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 2009 in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Linked physician and patient questionnaires collected data on OA management, degree of pain and disability, and satisfaction with OA control. RESULTS: The study included 363 treating physicians and 713 patients receiving tNSAIDs. Patient mean (standard deviation) age was 65.5 (11.0) years (range 36-94 years); 60% were women; 86% were white; and one-quarter were obese. Dissatisfaction with control of patients' OA was expressed by physicians or their patients, or both, for 51% of patients, including 208 patients (31%) with mild OA and 478 patients (60%) with moderate or severe OA. Overall, 37% of patients reported dissatisfaction and 34% had a physician who reported dissatisfaction. Patient and physician assessments were the same in 70% of cases; Cohen's κ coefficient was 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.26-0.41), indicating fair agreement. Of those reporting dissatisfaction, most physicians (79%) and patients (64%) believed that the current control was the best that could be achieved. The most common reasons for which physicians reported dissatisfaction were inadequate response (56%), side effects (11.1%), and poor tolerance (7.8%). CONCLUSION: One-half of patients or their treating physicians were dissatisfied with the control of OA provided by tNSAID therapy; moreover, most believed it was the best control that could be achieved.