Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescribing patterns in general practice: comparison of a general practitioner-based survey and a pharmacy-based survey in France

How often are ineffective interventions still used in clinical practice? A cross-sectional survey of 6,272 clinicians in China

Background

The World Health Organization reported in 2011that irrational use of medicines was a serious global problem that is wasteful and harmful. The worst is use of ineffective or harmful interventions which should not be used at all. However, little is known about the changes that 20 years of evidence-based medicine has made particularly in reducing use of ineffective interventions. We surveyed clinicians in China to show how often ineffective interventions were still used in practice.

Methods

3,246 clinicians from 24 tertiary hospitals were surveyed in person and another 3,063 through an online survey between 2006–2007. The main outcomes are prescription by a clinician, and use in a patient of, an ineffective intervention and of a matched effective intervention in patients with the same disease. 129 ineffective interventions for 68 diseases were identified from the BMJ Clinical Evidence and included in the survey. One effective intervention was identified for each disease and a total of 68 effective interventions were thus also included. The frequency of use of effective interventions was used as a reference for that of ineffective intervention.

Results

The mean prescription rate by clinicians is 59.0% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 58.6% to 59.4%) and 81.0% (95% CI: 80.6% to 81.4%) respectively for ineffective and effective interventions. The mean frequency of use in patients is 31.2% (95% CI: 30.8% to 31.6%) and 56.4% (95% CI: 56.0% to 56.8%) for ineffective and effective interventions respectively. The relative reduction in use of ineffective interventions as compared with that of matched effective interventions is 27.2% (95% CI: 27.0% to 27.4%) and 44.7% (95% CI: 44.3% to 45.1%) for clinician's prescription and use in patients respectively. 8.6% ineffective interventions were still routinely used in practice.

Conclusions

Ineffective interventions were still commonly used. Efforts are necessary to further reduce and eventually eliminate ineffective interventions from practice.

Laboratory monitoring of patients treated with antihypertensive drugs and newly exposed to non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a cohort study

Background

Drug-Drug Interactions between Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARBs) or diuretics can lead to renal failure and hyperkalemia. Thus, monitoring of serum creatinine and potassium is recommended when a first dispensing of NSAID occur in patients treated with these drugs.

Methods

We conducted a pharmacoepidemiological retrospective cohort study using data from the French Health Insurance Reimbursement Database to evaluate the proportion of serum creatinine and potassium laboratory monitoring in patients treated with ACEI, ARB or diuretic and receiving a first dispensing of NSAID. We described the first dispensing of NSAID among 3,500 patients of a 4-year cohort (6,633 patients treated with antihypertensive drugs) and analyzed serum creatinine and potassium laboratory monitoring within the 3 weeks after the first NSAID dispensing.

Results

General Practitioners were the most frequent prescribers of NSAIDs (85.5%, 95% CI: 84.3–86.6). The more commonly prescribed NSAIDs were ibuprofen (20%), ketoprofen (15%), diclofenac (15%) and piroxicam (12%). Serum creatinine and potassium monitoring was 10.7% (95% CI: 9.5–11.8) in patients treated by ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics. Overall, monitoring was more frequently performed to women aged over 60, treated with digoxin or glucose lowering drugs, but not to patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics. Monitoring was more frequent when NSAIDs' prescribers were cardiologists or anesthesiologists.

Conclusion

Monitoring of serum creatinine and potassium of patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics and receiving a first NSAID dispensing is insufficiently performed and needs to be reinforced through specific interventions.

Underutilization of gastroprotective drugs in patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

AIM

To assess the prevalence of gastroprotective agent prescription in patients treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in France and to analyze the determinants of this prescription.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was performed in 2576 patients treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs recruited prospectively in the French primary care system.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine percent of the patients (n=1002) received gastroprotective agents, mostly proton pump inhibitors (99.5%). In patients with a single risk factor, the gastroprotection rates were: 50% for age>65, 67% for concurrent use of corticosteroids or antithrombotics, and 87% and 100% for history of uncomplicated and complicated gastroduodenal ulcers. In patients without risk factors, gastroprotective agents were prescribed in 31.8%. Among them, two thirds had symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux or history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance or dyspepsia. Conversely, 40% (n=256) of at-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users did not receive gastroprotective agents. Gastroprotection was significantly associated with history of gastroduodenal ulcer (OR: 8.2; 95%CI: 4.3-15.6) or history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance (OR: 6; 95%CI: 4.5-8.1), gastro-oesophageal reflux (OR: 6; 95%CI: 4.4-8.2), dyspepsia (OR: 5.2; 95%CI: 3.7-7.5), concurrent gastrotoxic treatment (OR: 3.3; 95%CI: 1.9-5.6) and age>65 (OR: 3; 95%CI: 2.3-4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread recommendations, gastroprotection is still largely underprescribed in patients at risk of gastrointestinal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug complications in France. Only half of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users above 65 years are prescribed gastroprotective agents.

Preventing the gastrointestinal adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: from risk factor identification to risk factor intervention

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have huge prescription volumes, for two main reasons: the aging of the population is increasing the prevalence of diseases that respond to NSAIDs, such as osteoarthritis; and NSAIDs are highly effective drugs that contribute crucially to the management of many diseases. In France, the number of physician orders that include an NSAID is estimated at 25 to 30 million per year. Nevertheless, the use of NSAIDs is limited by adverse effects. The gastrointestinal tract is the main target of NSAID toxicity, and NSAID therapy is among the leading causes of bleeding from upper gastrointestinal ulcers. Adverse events targeting the lower gastrointestinal tract are also of concern, although they receive less attention. To effectively prevent NSAID toxicity, it must be recognized that the risk of adverse events can be diminished but not eliminated. Therefore, the risk/benefit ratio must be carefully evaluated at each prescription. A number of risk factors should be emphasized. Thus, the risk increases with age, and there is a sharp risk increase at 60 years of age. Other risk factors include a history of ulcers (most notably with bleeding), the use of high NSAID dosages, Helicobacter pylori infection, and the concomitant use of antiplatelet agents. Minimizing NSAID-related gastrointestinal toxicity requires a careful risk factor evaluation; selection of the most appropriate NSAID and NSAID dosage; and, in some patients, prophylactic gastroprotective therapy, for instance with a proton pump inhibitor. Gastrointestinal symptoms either have no value for predicting gastrointestinal events or occur too late to serve as alarm signals. The toxicity advantages of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors seem modest and do not eliminate the need for this rational prescription strategy.

Proton pump inhibitors in general medicine. Comparison of routine practices with marketing authorization indications

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether inaugural prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors (PPI) written by general practitioners in the Grenoble region are in non-compliance with the indications of the French drug marketing authorization.

METHODS

The study was conducted on all inaugural PPI prescriptions written by general practitioners in Grenoble region between March 1 and March 31, 2004. Analyses were performed on a random sample of 600 representative prescriptions. A questionnaire was sent to the general practitioners who had written these prescriptions. There were 255 responses which could be analyzed.

RESULT

Among the 19,983 prescriptions for PPIs written in March 2004, 4, 442 (22.8%) were first-time treatments. 85.9% of them were issued by general practitioners. The main reasons for prescription identified in the study sample were the association with other drugs [56.1%; 95%CI 50.0-62.2], gastroesophageal reflux disease [29.4%; 95%CI 23.8-35.0] and dyspepsia [11.4%; 95%CI 7.5-15.3]. The rate of non-compliance with the marketing authorization was 46.3% [95%CI 40.2-52.4], including 20.4% [95%CI 15.5-25.3] for inappropriate medical indications.

CONCLUSION

General practitioners were the principal prescribers of inaugural PPI treatments. Even after excluding prescriptions which were non-compliant because of a regulatory problem, one out of five prescriptions were written for inappropriate medical indications.

Treatment costs to prevent or treat upper gastrointestinal adverse events associated with NSAIDs

The widespread use of nonselective NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors has a substantial impact on healthcare budgets worldwide. The cost of their gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects is a major component of their direct cost and has received much attention in the literature. Published studies have often differed in their methodologies and results. It is important for decision makers to understand the reasons for these differences in order to make informed decisions. We conducted a literature review to summarise data that evaluate the direct costs of NSAID-related GI adverse effects worldwide. This resulted in 789 articles from which 29 studies met the inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Of these 29, the 9 studies that assessed the cost of COX-2 inhibitors were all based on decision economic models, compared with only 7 of the remaining 20 studies, which assessed the cost of nonselective NSAIDs. In most studies, the perspective was that of the healthcare payer and the costs assessed were reimbursement costs. Costs of GI events almost doubled between regular users and non-users of nonselective NSAIDs and were much higher in high-dose versus low-dose users. The ratio of the total cost of nonselective NSAIDs to their acquisition cost reported in all studies varied from 1.36 to 2.12. Both of these numbers were reported in one single study assessing several different NSAIDs in France. Thus, the GI adverse events attributable to nonselective NSAIDs are substantial, and their costs often exceed the cost of the nonselective NSAID itself.The acquisition cost of the COX-2 inhibitors was the main driver of their total cost. The GI adverse effects with the COX-2 inhibitors added 10-20% to their acquisition cost in North America, while this increase was about 50% in some European countries. Decision analysis models showed that the direct costs of COX-2 inhibitors were lower than those of nonselective NSAIDs in patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy but higher in patients at no to low risk of gastropathy. Thus, from an economic perspective, the healthcare system would benefit from treating patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy with COX-2 inhibitors, but not those at no to low risk.