Epidemiological and financial aspects of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics

Effect of Cardiospermum halicacabum on ethanol-induced gastric ulcers in rats

Ethanol extract of Cardiospermum halicacabum Linn. (Sapindaceae), in a concentration dependant manner (200-600mg/kg) inhibited gastric ulcers induced by oral administration of absolute ethanol. Further, the extract administration to rats resulted in an increase in levels of gastric glutathione and a decrease in alkaline phosphatase activity. The extract also exhibited potent in vitro hydroxyl radical scavenging and inhibition of lipid peroxidation activities. The extract was found to be devoid of any conspicuous acute and short-term toxicity in rats.

A nurse-delivered advice intervention can reduce chronic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in general practice: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To find out whether a nurse-delivered educational package can reduce chronic oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) usage in general practice.

METHOD

A prospective randomized controlled trial with assessment of economic cost/benefits was carried out in five general practices in Nottinghamshire with computerized prescribing systems, representing a mix of rural/urban and fundholding/non-fundholding practices. Patients suffering from non-malignant, non-inflammatory musculoskeletal pain received repeat prescriptions for oral NSAIDs. Two hundred and twenty-two patients were randomized to a control group (simple advice regarding NSAID use) or an intervention group (asked to withdraw their NSAIDs and employ appropriate alternative drug and non-drug therapies). All advice was supported by patient literature and delivered by a nurse practitioner trained in musculoskeletal assessment. The primary outcome measure was change in NSAID use 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome measures were changes in health and quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D questionnaires) and drug, health service and patient costs.

RESULTS

An extra 28% of patients in the intervention group either stopped taking oral NSAIDs or reduced dosage by > or =50% at 6 months compared with controls. There was no detrimental effect on health and well-being. Oral NSAID prescription costs were significantly lowered in the intervention group but not in the control group. A non-significant increase in total drug prescription costs occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-based intervention can reduce chronic NSAID usage and costs in primary care and would be cost-effective if maintained in the long term. This intervention package would be readily applicable in primary care.

Overweight, but not high dietary fat intake, increases risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease hospitalization: the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study. First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

PURPOSE

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is an important and increasingly common condition. Both overweight and high fat food consumption have been implicated as causes of reflux disease. We examined the relationship of overweight, high dietary fat intake, and other factors with reflux disease hospitalization.

METHODS

We studied participants in the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a population-based sample examined in 1971-75 and followed through 1992-93. Persons with a physician-diagnosed hiatal hernia at baseline or reflux disease hospitalization within the first five years of study were excluded. A second analysis included follow-up of 9851 participants free of reflux disease in 1982-84. Ninety-six percent of the baseline cohort were recontacted. Reflux disease cases were persons hospitalized with a diagnosis of esophagitis or uncomplicated hiatal hernia. Hazard rate ratios for reflux disease hospitalization according to body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), total daily servings of high fat foods and other factors were calculated using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12,349 persons were followed for a median of 18.5 years (range 5.0-22.1). Cumulative incidence of reflux disease hospitalization was 5.2% at 20 years. Multivariate survival analysis revealed higher reflux disease hospitalization rates with higher BMI (5 kg/m2) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.13-1.32]. No relationship was found between higher fat intake and reflux disease hospitalization. Other factors associated with reflux disease hospitalization included age, low recreational activity, and history of doctor-diagnosed arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Overweight, but not high dietary fat intake, increases risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease hospitalization.

Gastrointestinal effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely prescribed for the treatment of many conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, gouty arthritis, the joint and muscle discomfort associated with systemic lupus erythematosus, and other musculoskeletal disorders. Yet, their benefits, which are believed to be a result of their ability to inhibit cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), are accompanied by considerable toxicity. NSAIDs' untoward effects are attributed to their inhibition of the constitutively expressed enzyme cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), with attendant suppression of the synthesis of prostanoids, substances that mediate key homeostatic functions. Side effects include suppression of hemostasis through inhibition of platelet aggregation, adverse effects in patients with heart failure and cirrhosis, and those with certain renal diseases, as well as complicating antihypertensive therapies involving diuretics or beta-adrenoceptor blockade. Perhaps most importantly, NSAIDs disrupt the gastrointestinal mucosal-protective and acid-limiting properties of prostaglandins, frequently leading to upper gastrointestinal erosions and ulceration, with possible subsequent hemorrhage and perforation. These complications can be reduced through identification of patients at risk, with circumspect use of NSAIDs, careful functional monitoring, and, in the case of gastrointestinal toxicity, co-administration of such agents as misoprostol or omeprazole. However, these strategies introduce complexity into the treatment paradigm. Moreover, side effects and adverse events may be significantly reduced through the use of COX-2-specific inhibitors, new agents that alleviate pain and inflammation without the liability for adverse events caused by COX-1 inhibition.

Progress in prophylaxis against nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcers and erosions. Omeprazole NSAID Steering Committee

Four large clinical studies have shown that omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, is effective in preventing the significant gastroduodenal consequences of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the Scandinavian Collaborative Ulcer Recurrence (SCUR) study, patients were randomized (without initial endoscopy) to receive omeprazole or placebo for up to 3 months. Of the patients treated with omeprazole, 24.7% experienced treatment failure, compared with 50.0% of those on placebo. Fewer patients in the omeprazole group than in the placebo group developed a peptic ulcer (4.7% versus 16.7%, respectively) or dyspeptic symptoms (8.2% versus 20.0%, respectively). In the Omeprazole versus Placebo as Prophylaxis of Ulcers and Erosions from NSAID Treatment (OPPULENT) study, patients were also randomized to receive omeprazole or placebo. The estimated probability of remaining in remission for 6 months while receiving omeprazole was 0.78, compared with 0.53 for placebo. Fourteen (16.5%) patients on placebo developed peptic ulcer(s), compared with three (3.6%) patients on omeprazole. The Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-Induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) study consisted of a healing and a prophylactic phase. Patients who successfully completed the healing phase were re-randomized to receive omeprazole, misoprostol, or placebo for up to 6 months. In patients receiving omeprazole, 36.5% experienced treatment failure, compared with 48.6% of those on misoprostol, and 67.7% of those on placebo. Omeprazole and misoprostol appeared to be equally effective in preventing gastric ulcer; by contrast, omeprazole was highly effective in preventing duodenal ulcer, when compared with misoprostol and placebo. The Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-Associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) study also consisted of a healing and a prophylactic phase. Patients who successfully completed the healing phase were re-randomized to receive omeprazole or ranitidine for up to 6 months. In patients receiving omeprazole, 26.2% experienced treatment failure, compared with 37.7% of those on ranitidine. The percentages of patients with a peptic ulcer relapse were 5.7% for omeprazole and 19.5% for ranitidine. The data show that omeprazole is an effective and well-tolerated agent for both primary and secondary (maintenance) prophylaxis in patients receiving NSAIDs.

Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is effective for ulcers associated with the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) but is often poorly tolerated because of diarrhea and abdominal pain. We compared the efficacy of omeprazole and misoprostol in healing and preventing ulcers associated with NSAIDs.

METHODS

In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 935 patients who required continuous NSAID therapy and who had ulcers or more than 10 erosions in the stomach or duodenum (or both) to receive 20 mg or 40 mg of omeprazole orally in the morning or 200 microg of misoprostol orally four times daily. Patients were treated for four weeks or, in the absence of healing, eight weeks. Treatment success was defined as the absence of ulcers and the presence of fewer than five erosions at each site and not more than mild dyspepsia. We then randomly reassigned 732 patients in whom treatment was successful to maintenance therapy with 20 mg of omeprazole daily, 200 microg of misoprostol twice daily, or placebo for six months.

RESULTS

At eight weeks, treatment was successful in 76 percent of the patients given 20 mg of omeprazole (233 of 308), 75 percent of those given 40 mg of omeprazole (237 of 315), and 71 percent of those given misoprostol (212 of 298). The rates of gastric-ulcer healing were significantly higher with 20 mg of omeprazole (but not 40 mg of omeprazole) than with misoprostol. Healing rates among patients with duodenal ulcers were higher with either dose of omeprazole than with misoprostol, whereas healing rates among patients with erosions alone were higher with misoprostol. More patients remained in remission during maintenance treatment with omeprazole (61 percent) than with misoprostol (48 percent, P=0.001) and with either drug than with placebo (27 percent, P<0.001). There were more adverse events during the healing phase in the misoprostol group than in the groups given 20 mg and 40 mg of omeprazole (59 percent, 48 percent, and 46 percent, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rates of successful treatment of ulcers, erosions, and symptoms associated with NSAIDs were similar for the two doses of omeprazole and misoprostol. Maintenance therapy with omeprazole was associated with a lower rate of relapse than misoprostol. Omeprazole was better tolerated than misoprostol.

A comparison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group

BACKGROUND

Suppressing acid secretion is thought o reduce the risk of ulcers associated with regular use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but the best means of accomplishing this is uncertain.

METHODS

We studied 541 patients who required continuous treatment with NSAIDs and who had ulcers or more than 10 erosions in either the stomach or duodenum. Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with omeprazole, 20 mg or 40 mg orally per day, or ranitidine, 150 mg orally twice a day, for four or eight weeks, depending on when treatment was successful (defined as the resolution of ulcer and the presence of fewer than five erosions in the stomach, and fewer than five erosions in the duodenum, and not more than mild dyspepsia). We randomly assigned 432 patients in whom treatment was successful to maintenance treatment with either 20 mg of omeprazole per day or 150 mg of ranitidine twice a day for six months.

RESULTS

At eight weeks, treatment was successful in 80 percent (140 of 174) of the patients in the group given 20 mg of omeprazole per day, 79 percent (148 of 187) of those given 40 mg of omeprazole per day, and 63 percent (110 of 174) of those given ranitidine (P<0.001 for the comparison with 20 mg of omeprazole and P=0.001 for the comparison with 40 mg of omeprazole). The rates of healing of all types of lesions were higher with omeprazole than with ranitidine. During maintenance therapy, the estimated proportion of patients in remission at the end of six months was 72 percent in the omeprazole group and 59 percent in the ranitidine group. The rates of adverse events were similar between groups during both phases. Both medications were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with regular use of NSAIDs, omeprazole healed and prevented ulcers more effectively than did ranitidine.

Long-term transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) use: impact on medication utilization and physical therapy costs

OBJECTIVE

A study was conducted to assess a variety of treatment outcomes in long-term users of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) who suffer from chronic pain. Key components of the study examined the effects of long-term TENS therapy on pain-related medications and physical/occupational therapy (PT/OT) use.

DESIGN

From a population of 2,(X)3 chronic pain patients (CPPs) who acquired a TENS device (Epix XL, Empi, Inc., St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.) for pain management, a randomly selected sample of 376 patients who used TENS were interviewed by telephone by an independent research firm. The survey assessed a variety of outcome variables including changes in medication use, number of pain-related medications, and use of PT/OT prior to TENS and after a minimum 6 months of TENS treatment. The data were subjected to a paired t test analysis. A cost simulation model was then applied to the medication and PT/OT data.

RESULTS

The mean duration of pain, for which TENS was prescribed, was 40 +/- 60 months. As compared with the period prior to TENS use, this long-term TENS user group reported a statistically significant reduction in the following types of pain medications: opiate analgesics, tranquilizers, muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids. PT/OT use was also significantly reduced. Cost simulations of pain medications and PT/OT are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term use of TENS is associated with a significant reduction in the utilization of pain medication and PT/OT. In this study population, cost simulations of medication and PT/OT indicate that with long-term TENS use, costs can be reduced up to 55% for medications and up to 69% for PT/OT. The potential for TENS associated improvement, combined with reduced medication-related complications and costs, are important points that clinicians should consider when constructing a treatment plan for chronic pain patients. Finally, cost simulation techniques provide a useful tool for assessing outcomes in pain treatment and research.

Economics of osteoarthritis: a global perspective

Musculoskeletal disorders, of which osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common, incur significant economic, social and psychological costs. Costs of illness have risen over recent decades accounting for up to 1-2.5% of the gross national product for those countries studied so far, including the USA, Canada, the UK, France and Australia. Arthritis has a significant impact on psychosocial and physical function and is known to be the leading cause of disability in later life. There are also significant out-of-pocket costs and loss of earnings due to changes in occupation and roles in domestic duties. Current guidelines for the management of OA of hip and knee include the recommendation of inexpensive but effective interventions. Although the guidelines have not had a specific economic evaluation, cost reductions may be expected. OA is a very common disease and will become an increasing economic burden as the population ages.

New perspectives on osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common rheumatologic disease, afflicting tens of millions of U.S. citizens. It is not an inevitable consequence of aging; rather, it is a degenerative process acquired because of metabolic, mechanical, genetic, and other influences. It is characterized by progressive loss of cartilage and bony overgrowth. Because cartilage is not innervated, the pain of OA arises from secondary effects, such as joint capsule distention, stretching of periosteal nerve endings, and, possibly, synovial inflammation. Psychologic factors, including stress and depression, may influence the perception of pain by OA patients. The risk of OA apparently is not increased by normal joint use, but persons who participate in competitive sports or who play with abnormal or injured joints are at increased risk. Obesity increases OA risk, and weight loss has been found to decrease it. Some forms of premature OA appear to be inherited. The objective diagnosis of OA is made on the basis of radiography. However, many individuals with radiographic evidence of OA are asymptomatic in the affected joint. It is essential to ensure that pain in the affected joint is attributable to OA and not another cause. The management of OA should include physical medicine measures such as heat or cold therapy and often neglected environmental measures, such as reducing chair height and using shoe orthotics. Therapeutic exercise is beneficial for many patients and includes an initial warm-up with range of motion, muscle strengthening, and aerobic activity (such as swimming). A major question in the pharmacologic management of OA is whether nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are superior to analgesics in terms of symptomatic relief; studies indicate that they are not. The question is relevant because of the adverse effects of NSAID use, particularly in the elderly population.