ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate programmatic elements supporting BSN attainment by employed nurses holding associate degrees or diplomas, using a stakeholder involvement approach. BACKGROUND: Studies have associated higher percentages of baccalaureate-prepared nurses with improved clinical outcomes. Since 2013, the study organization supported an RN-to-BSN requirement with an academic progression benefit program and achieved an 80% BSN goal by 2021. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Framework for Program Evaluation was used. A mixed methods approach was orchestrated by a stakeholder team to explore use and importance of programmatic elements, and motivators and barriers for degree attainment, using an online survey and focus groups. RESULTS: Respondents revealed a significant association between BSN degree attainment and financial assistance and perceived importance of financial assistance and educational fairs. CONCLUSIONS: Validating organizational tactics is important for achieving increased numbers of baccalaureate-prepared nurses and supportive of the cost-effective use of resources.
Subject(s)
Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate , Focus Groups , Humans , Motivation , Program Evaluation , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). INTERVENTIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Butanones/therapeutic use , Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Lactones/therapeutic use , Osteoarthritis, Knee/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Butanones/administration & dosage , Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Lactones/administration & dosage , Lactones/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Nabumetone , Osteoarthritis, Knee/diagnosis , Placebos , Safety , Sulfones , Time FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity mediated by dual cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 inhibition of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can cause serious alterations of mucosal integrity or, more commonly, intolerable GI symptoms that may necessitate discontinuation of therapy. Unlike NSAIDs, rofecoxib targets only the COX-2 isoform. OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability of rofecoxib compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 600 office and clinical research sites. PATIENTS: 5557 patients (mean age, 63 years) with a baseline diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, hand, or spine. INTERVENTION: Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, or naproxen, 500 mg twice daily. Use of routine medications, including aspirin, was permitted. MEASUREMENTS: Discontinuation due to GI adverse events (primary end point) and use of concomitant medication to treat GI symptoms (secondary end point). Efficacy was determined by patient-reported global assessment of disease status and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, as well as discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. RESULTS: Rates of cumulative discontinuation due to GI adverse events were statistically significantly lower in the rofecoxib group than in the naproxen group (5.9% vs. 8.1%; relative risk, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92]; P = 0.005), as were rates of cumulative use of medication to treat GI symptoms (9.1% vs. 11.2%; relative risk, 0.79 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]; P = 0.014]). Subgroup analysis of patients who used low-dose aspirin (13%) and those who previously discontinued using arthritis medication because of GI symptoms (15%) demonstrated a relative risk similar to the overall sample for discontinuation due to GI adverse events (relative risk, 0.56 [CI, 0.31 to 1.01] and 0.53 [CI, 0.34 to 0.84], respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between treatments for efficacy in treating osteoarthritis or for occurrence of other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis treated for 12 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, was as effective as naproxen, 500 mg twice daily, but had statistically significantly superior GI tolerability and led to less use of concomitant GI medications. Benefits of rofecoxib in subgroup analyses were consistent with findings in the overall sample.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Gastrointestinal Diseases/chemically induced , Lactones/adverse effects , Naproxen/adverse effects , Osteoarthritis/drug therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Lactones/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Naproxen/therapeutic use , Osteoarthritis/complications , Prospective Studies , SulfonesABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Osteoarthritis (OA) is often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, or specific inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2). OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative therapeutic efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in adults with OA. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial, conducted from June 1999 to February 2000, in 29 clinical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Three hundred eighty-two patients aged at least 40 years who had OA of the knee that was previously treated with NSAIDs or acetaminophen. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d (n = 96); rofecoxib, 25 mg/d (n = 95); celecoxib, 200 mg/d (n = 97); or acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d (n = 94) for 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments over days 1 to 6 and over 6 weeks included pain on walking, night pain, pain at rest, and morning stiffness as measured on a Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]) and global response to therapy compared among 4 treatment groups. RESULTS: 79% of patients completed the study. More patients treated with acetaminophen discontinued early due to lack of efficacy than patients treated with COX-2 inhibitors (31% vs 18%-19%). Efficacy assessed in the first 6 days of therapy showed greatest response to rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, followed by rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d, celecoxib, and acetaminophen, respectively, in terms of relief of pain on walking (-32.2, - 29.0, - 26.4, and -20.6 mm change on the VAS; P=.04 for all others vs acetaminophen; P =.05 for 25-mg rofecoxib vs celecoxib), rest pain (-21.8, - 18.6, - 15.5, and - 12.5 mm; P=.02 for either dose of rofecoxib vs acetaminophen and P =.02 for rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, vs celecoxib), night pain (-25.2, - 22.0, - 18.7, and - 18.8 mm; P =.04 for rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, vs both acetaminophen and celecoxib), and morning stiffness (-30.4, - 28.4, - 25.7, and - 20.9 mm; P=.02 for either dose of rofecoxib vs acetaminophen). Over 6 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, provided greatest response for night pain (P<.002 vs celecoxib and P =.006 vs acetaminophen and P =.02 vs rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d), composite pain subscale (P=.03 vs all other treatments), stiffness subscale (P=.04 vs celecoxib and acetaminophen), and physical function subscale (P =.001 vs acetaminophen). Global responses over 6 weeks showed a similar pattern (good or excellent response at week 6: 60%, 56%, 46%, and 39%, respectively; P=.03 for rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, vs celecoxib and acetaminophen; P =.02 for rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d, vs acetaminophen). All treatments were generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, provided efficacy advantages over acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d, celecoxib, 200 mg/d, and rofecoxib, 12.5 mg, for symptomatic knee OA.