Cost-effectiveness of Oral Versus Intravenous Ibuprofen Therapy in Preterm Infants With Patent Ductus Arteriosus in the Neonatal Intensive Care Setting: A Cohort-based Study.

PURPOSE: Use of ibuprofen for the patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) has become increasingly common. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of oral ibuprofen versus intravenous ibuprofen for PDA among preterm infants. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort-based pilot study examined the clinical and economic associations of oral versus intravenous ibuprofen for PDA. A decision-analytic model was constructed, from the hospital perspective, to follow the oral versus intravenous administrations of ibuprofen for PDA and their clinical and economic consequences. The course regimen of either formulation was an initial 10 mg/kg followed by 5 mg/kg at 24- and 48-h intervals. Clinical and resource utilization data were extracted from Cerner medical database, from 2014 through 2018, at the tertiary neonatal intensive care unit setting in Qatar. The primary outcome measures were the rate of successful closure based on the ductal diameter measure after the first course of treatment and the overall direct medical cost of PDA management. A population of 118 neonates was required for results with 80% power and 0.05 significance. Sensitivity analyses involving unit costs and a subgroup analysis based on gestational age and birth weight, added to a second-order probabilistic analysis of all model inputs, were performed. FINDINGS: Forty infants were available for inclusion in the oral ibuprofen study group, not achieving the desired sample size, with successful PDA closure reported in 64% of cases compared with a reduced success of 36% with intravenous ibuprofen (n = 59) (risk ratio = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.97; P = 0.04), which was associated with economic advantage to oral ibuprofen. The probabilistic analysis illustrated that oral ibuprofen costs less than intravenous ibuprofen in 72% of patient cases, with QAR 48,751 (US $13,356) (95% CI, QAR 47,500-50,000, US $13,014-$13,699) in mean savings. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of study conclusions and found that the rate of closure success versus failure was the most influential on results, followed by the occurrence of adverse drug events with both intravenous and oral ibuprofen. Although both ibuprofen formulations had similar safety profiles (P = 0.16), the intravenous formulation was associated with a larger number of adverse drug effects. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first cost-effectiveness evaluation of oral versus intravenous formulations of ibuprofen among infants with PDA. The oral ibuprofen might be associated with an enhanced ductal closure at a considerably lower cost. The study results support recent trends in neonatal intensive care unit practices in favor of the oral administration of ibuprofen.

Cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of supervised treatment compared to written advice in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of the 2-year outcome from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 24-month cost-effectiveness of supervised treatment compared to written advice in knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: 100 adults with moderate-severe OA not eligible for total knee replacement (TKR) randomized to a 12-week individualized, supervised treatment (exercise, education, diet, insoles and pain medication) or written advice. Effectiveness was measured as change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from baseline to 24 months, including data from baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, while healthcare costs and transfer payments were derived from national registries after final follow-up. Incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis resampling existing data was conducted and the probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated using a 22,665 Euros/QALY threshold. In a sensitivity analysis, cost-effectiveness was calculated for different costs of the supervised treatment (actual cost in study; cost in private practice; and in-between cost). RESULTS: Average costs were similar between groups (6,758 Euros vs 6,880 Euros), while the supervised treatment were close to being more effective (incremental effect (95% CI) of 0.075 (-0.005 to 0.156). In the primary analysis excluding deaths, this led the supervised treatment to be cost-effective, compared to written advice. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were sensitive to changes in the cost of treatment, but in all scenarios the supervised treatment was cost-effective (ICERs of 6,229 to 20,688 Euros/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: From a 24-month perspective, a 12-week individualized, supervised treatment program is cost-effective compared to written advice in patients with moderate-severe knee OA not eligible for TKR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01535001.

Cost-effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in older patients with multiple comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes of naproxen, ibuprofen, celecoxib or tramadol for OA patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to examine treatment with these analgesics after standard of care (SOC) - acetaminophen and corticosteroid injections - failed to control pain. NSAID regimens were evaluated with and without proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We evaluated over-the-counter (OTC) regimens where available. Estimates of treatment efficacy (pain reduction, occurring in ∼57% of patients on all regimens) and toxicity (major cardiac or gastrointestinal toxicity or fractures, risk ranging from 1.09% with celecoxib to 5.62% with tramadol) were derived from published literature. Annual costs came from Red Book Online(®). Outcomes were discounted at 3%/year and included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Key input parameters were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Adding ibuprofen to SOC was cost saving, increasing QALYs by 0.07 while decreasing cost by $800. Incorporating OTC naproxen rather than ibuprofen added 0.01 QALYs and increased costs by $300, resulting in an ICER of $54,800/QALY. Using prescription naproxen with OTC PPIs led to an ICER of $76,700/QALY, while use of prescription naproxen with prescription PPIs resulted in an ICER of $252,300/QALY. Regimens including tramadol or celecoxib cost more but added fewer QALYs and thus were dominated by several of the naproxen-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple comorbidities, naproxen- and ibuprofen-containing regimens are more effective and cost-effective in managing OA pain than opioids, celecoxib or SOC.

Budget impact modeling for a single-tablet formulation of ibuprofen and famotidine for prevention of upper gastrointestinal ulcers in patients with osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the relief of signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis and to decrease the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers in patients taking ibuprofen for those indications. Currently, little is known about the cost impact of gastroprotective therapies, and an estimate of the financial consequences of adopting these therapies will be helpful to decision makers. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to review a model that evaluates the expected financial impact to US health care plans from the introduction of single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine into the chronic NSAID user population. METHODS: A budget impact model, considering a typical health plan of 1 million enrollees, was used to compare patients receiving: (1) single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine; (2) chronic NSAID treatment plus any GI-protective agent; and (3) chronic NSAID treatment without a GI-protective agent. RESULTS: The expected medication cost for single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine was $734,192 ($81,577 in year 1, $244,731 in year 2, and $407,884 in year 3), corresponding to a total per-member per-month cost of $0.020 ($0.007 in year 1, $0.020 in year 2, and $0.034 in year 3). Considering anticipated decreases in the use of other NSAIDs, the use of GI-protective agents, and GI complications, the total expected 3-year drug cost for single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine was offset by 50%, representing an estimated total budget impact of $364,396 or $0.010 per member per month. Sensitivity analyses of cost and market share variables and clinical and drug characteristics identified the most influential variables to be the cost of the drug and persistence to the ibuprofen/famotidine formulation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The expected decrease in treatment costs for less serious GI-related complications illustrates the benefits of single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine as a gastroprotective therapy in patients receiving chronic NSAID treatment, with a modest financial impact on total health care costs.

NMR spectrometry isotopic fingerprinting: a tool for the manufacturer for tracking active pharmaceutical ingredients from starting materials to final medicines.

In the frame of increasingly stringent quality assessment required by the regulators, the pharmaceutical industry has to face increasingly sophisticated counterfeiting practices. Counterfeits based on deliberate copying of processes or on the infringement of current patents for generic medicines are not straightforward to detect, unless the molecular probe is the active molecule itself. In this context, impurity profiling is limited. A tool based on the determination of intramolecular isotopic profiles has been developed to provide manufacturers of APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) with a new solution to meet this double requirement. Stable isotope analyses by NMR gives direct access to site-specific isotope content at natural abundance. In this report, it is shown how both ²H and ¹³C NMR spectrometry can provide complementary and valuable information that could be applied to link APIs to their manufacturing source. Isotopic ¹³C NMR offers additional benefits over ²H NMR in using robust adiabatic polarization transfer methods, leading to a tremendous reduction in experimental time. Two approaches are illustrated. Firstly, the use of ²H and single pulse ¹³C NMR spectra obtained on 20 commercial ibuprofen samples from different origins show that this combined strategy leads to (i) a unique intramolecular isotope identification and (ii) a preliminary classification of the samples according to the synthetic pathways of the main industrial processes. An approach employing polarization transfer methods applied to 11 commercial naproxen samples, for which ²H and single pulse ¹³C NMR spectra are not exploitable and/or are not accessible in reasonable time. The relative and partial intramolecular ¹³C distribution obtained on naproxen by applying this methodology is sufficiently informative to allow the same conclusions as for ibuprofen. The additional benefits that these approaches should bring to API manufacturers are discussed.

Paracetamol and ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children: the PITCH randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paracetamol plus ibuprofen compared with paracetamol and ibuprofen separately for time without fever, and the relief of fever-associated discomfort in young children who can be managed at home. DESIGN: The trial design was a single-centre (multisite), individually randomised, blinded, three-arm trial comparing paracetamol and ibuprofen together with paracetamol or ibuprofen separately. SETTING: There were three recruitment settings, as follows: 'local' where research nurses were recruited from NHS primary care sites; 'remote' where NHS sites notified the study of potentially eligible children; and 'community' where parents contacted the study in response to local media advertisements. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 6 months and 6 years with fever > or = 37.8 degrees C and < or = 41 degrees C due to an illness that could be managed at home. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was the provision of, and advice to give, the medicines for up to 48 hours: paracetamol every 4-6 hours (maximum of four doses in 24 hours) and ibuprofen every 6-8 hours (maximum of three doses in 24 hours). Every parent received two bottles, with at least one containing an active medicine. Parents, research nurses and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation by the use of identically matched placebo medicines. The dose of medicine was determined by the child's weight: paracetamol 15 mg/kg and ibuprofen 10 mg/kg per dose. RESULTS: For additional time without fever in the first 4 hours, use of both medicines was superior to use of paracetamol alone [adjusted difference 55 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 33 to 77 minutes; p < 0.001] and may have been as good as ibuprofen (adjusted difference 16 minutes, 95% CI -6 to 39 minutes; p = 0.2). Both medicines together cleared the fever 23 minutes (95% CI 2-45 minutes; p = 0.015) faster than paracetamol alone, but no faster than ibuprofen alone (adjusted difference -3 minutes, 95% CI 24-18 minutes; p = 0.8). For additional time without fever in the first 24 hours, both medicines were superior to paracetamol (adjusted difference 4.4 hours, 95% CI 2.4-6.3 hours; p < 0.001) or ibuprofen (adjusted difference 2.5 hours, 95% CI 0.6-4.5 hours; p = 0.008) alone. No reduction in discomfort or other fever-associated symptoms was found, although power was low for these outcomes. An exploratory analysis showed that children with higher discomfort levels had higher mean temperatures. No difference in adverse effects was observed between treatment groups. The recommended maximum number of doses of paracetamol and ibuprofen in 24 hours was exceeded in 8% and 11% of children respectively. Over the 5-day study period, paracetamol and ibuprofen together was the cheapest option for the NHS due to the lower use of health-care services:14 pounds [standard deviation (SD) 23 pounds] versus 20 pounds (SD 38 pounds) for paracetamol and 18 pounds (SD 40 pounds) for ibuprofen. Both medicines were also cheapest for parents because the lower use of health care services resulted in personal saving on travel costs and less time off work: 24 pounds (SD 46 pounds) versus 26 pounds (SD 63 pounds) for paracetamol and 30 pounds (SD 91 pounds) for ibuprofen. This more than compensated for the extra cost of medication. However, statistical evidence for these differences was weak due to lack of power. Overall, a quarter of children were 'back to normal' by 48 hours and one-third by day 5. Five (3%) children were admitted to hospital, two with pneumonia, two with bronchiolitis and one with a severe, but unidentified 'viral illness'. CONCLUSIONS: Young children who are unwell with fever should be treated with ibuprofen first, but the relative risks (inadvertently exceeding the maximum recommended dose) and benefits (extra 2.5 hours without fever) of using paracetamol plus ibuprofen over 24 hours should be considered. However, if two medicines are used, it is recommended that all dose times are carefully recorded to avoid accidentally exceeding the maximum recommended dose. Manufacturers should consider supplying blank charts for this purpose. Use of both medicines should not be discouraged on the basis of cost to either parents or the NHS. Parents and clinicians should be aware that fever is a relatively short-lived symptom, but may have more serious prognostic implications than the other common symptom presentations of childhood.

Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost to the NHS and to parents and carers of treating febrile preschool children with paracetamol, ibuprofen, or both, and to compare these costs with the benefits of each treatment regimen. DESIGN: Cost consequences analysis and cost effectiveness analysis conducted as part of a three arm, randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years recruited from primary care and the community with axillary temperatures >or=37.8 degrees C and

The impact of generic substitution on price competition in Finland.

Generic substitution by pharmacists was introduced in April 2003 in Finnish pharmaceutical markets. This article examines the impact of generic substitution on price development. This study examined all of the 2,100 substitutable drugs in Finland. The impact of generic substitution on price competition was significant. The average price of substitutable drugs decreased by more than 10%. However, the price development was uneven; some prices increased whereas others decreased by more than 50%. The most important factors that influenced the price development were the number of competitors, whether the drug was originator or generic and the width of the price band.

TOIB Study. Are topical or oral ibuprofen equally effective for the treatment of chronic knee pain presenting in primary care: a randomised controlled trial with patient preference study. [ISRCTN79353052].

BACKGROUND: Many older people have chronic knee pain. Both topical and oral non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat this. Oral NSAIDS are effective, at least in the short term, but can have severe adverse effects. Topical NSAIDs also appear to be effective, at least in the short term. One might expect topical NSAIDs both to be less effective and to have fewer adverse effects than oral NSAIDs. If topical NSAIDs have fewer adverse effects this may outweigh both the reduction in effectiveness and the higher cost of topical compared to oral treatment. Patient preferences may influence the comparative effectiveness of drugs delivered via different routes. METHODS: TOIB is a randomised trial comparing topical and oral ibuprofen, with a parallel patient preference study. We are recruiting people aged 50 or over with chronic knee pain, from 27 MRC General Practice Research Framework practices across the UK. We are seeking to recruit 283 participants to the RCT and 379 to the PPS. Participants will be followed up for up to two years (with the majority reaching one year). Outcomes will be assessed by postal questionnaire, nurse examination, laboratory tests and medical record searches at one and two years or the end of the study. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new evidence on the overall costs and benefits of treating chronic knee pain with either oral or topical ibuprofen. The use of a patient preference design is unusual, but will allow us to explore how preference influences response to a medication. In addition, it will provide more information on adverse events. This study will provide evidence to inform primary care practitioners, and possibly influence practice.

Risk of skin reactions when using ibuprofen-based medicines.

Adverse reactions to drugs are a frequent cause of morbidity and medical consultation; it is no surprise that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) run second, after antibiotics, mainly of the beta-lactam group (penicillins and cephalosporins). Numerous clinical pictures involving the skin--various morbilliform rashes, urticaria and angioedema as the most common--due to hypersensitivity to a particular NSAID (i.e., ibuprofen) have been described; other clinically defined skin diseases such as vasculitis, Steven-Johnson's syndrome, photosensitivity, fixed drug eruptions, livedo-like dermatitis, linear drug eruption, lichenoid drug eruption, exanthematous pustulosis, eczematous eruption, contact dermatitis and pemphigoid have received the attention of physicians. Extensive use around the world makes it interesting to investigate adverse cutaneous reactions to ibuprofen and other members of the propionic acid derivative group, to ascertain their prevalence, clinical presentation and prevention. This paper presents a review of published literature concerning cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions to ibuprofen and related arylpropionic acids.

Ibuprofen to rofecoxib: what does it all mean and what do I do now?

NSAIDs are used throughout the World Health Organization three-step analgesic ladder, and are indicated for pain in all stages of malignancy. Side-effects are common with NSAIDs. Much has been written about NSAIDs and COX, since the discovery of COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms. How do you choose the appropriate NSAID? The choice of NSAID continues to be dependent upon associated gastroduodenal toxicity and the related risk factors of individual patients. Choosing the appropriate NSAID should minimize the likelihood of needing additional medications to manage adverse effects and symptoms caused by the NSAID therapy itself.

Ibuprofen versus other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: use in general practice and patient perception.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether ibuprofen was as well-regarded by patients as other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: Questionnaire sent to 1137 consecutive recipients of an NSAID prescription from 21 doctors in six general practices with computerized records. Patient responses were subsequently linked to data held on the practice records. SETTING: General practices in and around Nottingham, selected to reflect local variations in number of partners, list size, geographical location, deprivation, prescribing burden and prescribing rate. SUBJECTS: Unselected patients receiving NSAIDs prescribed for all indications for use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs, possible drug related adverse events, patients' overall satisfaction with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs, factors associated with choice of ibuprofen, drug costs of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs. RESULTS: The main NSAIDs used were ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen. Ibuprofen use ranged from 1.0% of prescriptions in one practice to 69.1% in another. Although ibuprofen was generally prescribed in low doses, it was perceived by patients as being as effective as the other NSAIDs used, even after allowing for severity of the pre-treatment condition. Overall, 50.5% of patients rated their NSAID the best treatment they had received for their condition with no differences between individual drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen is as highly regarded as other NSAIDs when used in similar circumstances. Switching patients to ibuprofen may be a realistic way of reducing financial and medical costs associated with NSAIDs.

Pharmacoepidemiology of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in Nottingham general practices.

AIM: To investigate the pharmacoepidemiology of NSAID usage in Nottingham general practices. DESIGN: Questionnaire sent to 1137 consecutive recipients of an NSAID prescription from 21 doctors in six general practices with computerized records. Patient responses were subsequently linked to data held on the practice records. SETTING: General practices in and around Nottingham, selected to reflect local variations in number of partners, list size, geographical location, deprivation, prescribing burden and prescribing rate. SUBJECTS: Unselected patients receiving NSAIDs prescribed for all indications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indication for treatment, differences in prescribing to different age groups, compliance and overall scheme drug exposure, drug effectiveness and tolerability, possible drug-related adverse events, patients' overall satisfaction with treatment and estimated costs of care. RESULTS: NSAIDs were used for a wide range of conditions and only a small number of patients had rheumatoid arthritis. The main drugs used were ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen. Patients making short-term use of NSAIDs had low compliance if they experienced adverse drug effects, whilst conversely in long-term users, those with high compliance reported more adverse drug effects. Calculated compliance did not vary with age although older patients (over 65 years) claimed in their questionnaires to be more compliant than younger patients. Half the patients reported good or complete symptom relief. Half of those questions (and two thirds of those with good or complete symptom relief) rated their NSAID as the best treatment they had received for their current condition. The frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher in the young and the old, which correlated with the use of anti-ulcer drugs, and increased with the total number of medications used. CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs are used for a wide-range of conditions. They give symptom relief to, and are perceived as effective by, most patients taking them.

Cost savings using a stepped-care prescribing protocol for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To lower nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) costs while maintaining quality patient care and clinician satisfaction. DESIGN: Before and after 21-month trial with one study site and two control sites and a questionnaire that was sent to 203 clinicians. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Two military medical centers and two affiliated primary care clinics. All beneficiaries filling outpatient NSAID prescriptions. INTERVENTIONS: An NSAID prescribing protocol was implemented requiring a trial of either ibuprofen or indomethacin before new prescription of more expensive NSAIDs. One control center used an NSAID computer cost-prompt and the other had no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of expensive NSAIDs prescribed at each institution and total NSAID costs adjusted for prescription volume. Clinician acceptance and patient impact were assessed by the questionnaire. RESULTS: Study site clinicians (n=158) reported very few protocol-related patient care problems. A minority (9%) of study site clinicians considered the protocol very bothersome, and only 2% felt it should be discontinued. Quarterly use of expensive NSAIDs at the study site fell from 34% to 21%, decreasing costs by 30% (P<.001). In contrast, the site with a computer cost-prompt had only a 5% decrease in NSAID costs, while costs at the site with no intervention increased 2%. CONCLUSIONS: For drugs with similar benefits and adverse effects, a "stepped formulary" approach requiring an initial trial of one of the less expensive agents can maintain physician prescribing choices and satisfaction while lowering costs.

A decision analysis model in the evaluation of NSAIDs in a managed care setting: a case study.

The objective of this study is to utilize a clinical trial based on a decision-analysis model to assess the economic benefit of a lower incidence of gastrointestinal lesions in elderly patients with osteoarthritis receiving nabumetone therapy compared with ibuprofen alone and in combination with misoprostol. An arthritic population of an HMO (> 60 yr of age) was applied to the decision analysis based on the HMO's nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and antiulcer usage and acquisition costs. Results indicate the potential for a decrease in overall medical resource utilization through the use of nabumetone in elderly patients with rheumatoid and osteoarthritis. Based on this information, nabumetone has been added to the HMO formulary as a second-tier agent with a repeat of the analysis scheduled in one year to verify the economic benefits and modify prescribing guidelines accordingly.

Nabumetone in elderly patients with osteoarthritis: economic benefits versus ibuprofen alone or ibuprofen plus misoprostol.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vary in their potential to produce gastropathy. We compared the 3-month direct medical costs, including those associated with treating NSAID-induced adverse events, of nabumetone, ibuprofen, or ibuprofen plus misoprostol in 171 elderly patients with osteoarthritis. Total direct medical costs per patient treated were $US183 for nabumetone, $US252 for ibuprofen, and $US270 for ibuprofen plus misoprostol. Differences resulted from higher costs associated with treatment of drug-related adverse events with ibuprofen, and higher drug acquisition prices with the combination regimen. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that direct costs with nabumetone approached those for the other 2 regimens if the price of nabumetone increased by 60%, the probability of lesion formation with nabumetone increased 4-fold, the probability of a lesion greater than 0.5cm being symptomatic and needing treatment was 31%, or the price of misoprostol decreased by 50%. Although this study found more lesions because of mandated endoscopies than might be recognised or treated in clinical practice, the results suggest an economic benefit of nabumetone.

Assessing physician choice of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in a health maintenance organization.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a categorization scheme for grouping various nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by relative safety; to develop a method to quantify the appropriateness of the initial and subsequent choices of NSAID therapy; to assess whether NSAID prescribing was consistent with the developed criteria; to examine the cost of inappropriate, acute NSAID use as defined by the established criteria. DESIGN: Retrospective drug utilization review focusing on NSAIDs. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Members aged > or = 18 years of a 40,000-person southeastern Michigan health maintenance organization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Appropriateness of therapy using a four-level safety classification system for the NSAIDs developed by a consensus process; criteria based on safety under the assumption that any particular NSAID is equally likely to be effective when dosed appropriately; (2) evaluation of progression of NSAID therapy using the NSAID Therapy Progression Formula. RESULTS: For acute patients, almost half of the prescriptions were for ibuprofen and 33 percent were for naproxen. Ibuprofen usage accounted for 16 percent of total NSAID cost and naproxen agents accounted for over 50 percent of that cost. Potential cost savings of approximately $82,000 probably would have occurred had a 50 percent interchange rate for ibuprofen been acceptable. For chronic patients, 85 percent were treated with one or two NSAIDs; treatments were of reasonable high quality when compared by safety profiles. There was low use of ibuprofen in patients who only received one NSAID. CONCLUSIONS: NSAID usage assessment in a large population was achieved by developing a classification and scoring system based on NSAID safety; in this population, prescribing patterns were generally consistent with established criteria; however, when considering cost, improvement in initial NSAID selection for acute patients was possible.