Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials

Efficacy and NSAID-sparing effect of secukinumab 150 mg in ankylosing spondylitis: results from phase IV ASTRUM study

Background

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA), formerly known as ankylosing spondylitis (AS), is a chronic, inflammatory rheumatic disease associated with symptoms such as inflammatory back pain, morning stiffness, and arthritis. First-line recommendations for patients with AS include treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing pain and stiffness.

Objectives

The objective of our study is to evaluate the efficacy and short-term NSAID-sparing effect of secukinumab in patients with AS currently treated with NSAIDs.

Design

We assessed the clinical Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS20) response to secukinumab and evaluated the extent to which the use of concomitant NSAID can be reduced between weeks 4 and 12 in r-axSpA patients treated with secukinumab 150 mg compared with placebo.

Methods

ASTRUM was a prospective 24-week randomized controlled trial of adult patients with active r-axSpA [Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ⩾4] who had a documented inadequate response to ⩾2 NSAIDs. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to initiate treatment with subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg from either week 0 (group 1), week 4 (group 2), or week 16 (group 3). From week 4 onward, tapering of NSAIDs was allowed in all groups.

Results

This study included 211 patients (n = 71, 70, and 70 in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). ASAS20 response at week 12 for pooled groups 1 and 2 versus group 3 was 51.1% versus 44.3% (p = 0.35). A higher proportion of patients in groups 1 and 2 achieved ASAS40 and BASDAI50 and showed improvements in other secondary clinical outcomes as compared to group 3 at week 16. More patients in groups 1 and 2 versus group 3 stopped their NSAID intake from baseline through week 16.

Conclusion

Treatment with secukinumab improved clinical outcomes and showed a short-term NSAID-sparing effect in patients with r-axSpA, even though the primary endpoint was not met.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02763046, EudraCT 2015-004575-74.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Pharmaceutical treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To review the current state of pharmaceutical treatment recommendations for the management of osteoarthritis.

METHOD

A narrative review was drafted to describe treatment guidelines, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and toxicity for nine classes of pharmaceuticals: 1) oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 2) topical NSAIDs, 3) COX-2 inhibitors, 4) duloxetine, 5) intra-articular corticosteroids, 6) intra-articular hyaluronic acid, 7) acetaminophen (paracetamol), 8) tramadol, and 9) capsaicin.

RESULTS

In general, oral and topical NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors, are strongly recommended first-line treatments for osteoarthritis due to their ability to improve pain and function but are associated with increased risks in patients with certain comorbidities (e.g., heightened cardiovascular risks). Intra-articular corticosteroid injections are generally recommended for osteoarthritis management and have relatively minor adverse effects. Other treatments, such as capsaicin, tramadol, and acetaminophen, are more controversial, and many updated guidelines offer differing recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The pharmaceutical management of osteoarthritis is a constantly evolving field. Promising treatments are emerging, and medicines that were once considered conventional (e.g., acetaminophen) are gradually becoming less acceptable based on concerns with efficacy and safety. Clinicians need to consider the latest evidence and recommendations to make an informed decision with their patients about how to optimize treatment plans for patients with knee, hip, polyarticular, or hand osteoarthritis.

Zingerone (4-(four-hydroxy-3-methylphenyl) butane-two-1) modulates adjuvant-induced rheumatoid arthritis by regulating inflammatory cytokines and antioxidants

OBJECTIVE

Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) is considered to be one of the most commonly consumed dietary condiments of the world. The present study was designed to explicate the protective role of zingerone; an active ingredient of ginger in complete Freund's adjuvant (FCA)-immunized arthritic rats.

METHODS

24 Wistar rats were divided into 4 groups with 6 rats each. Group I as control followed by group II, III and IV were treated with single intradermal injection of FCA (0.1 ml = 100 µg) to induce rheumatoid arthritis. Group III and IV were also administered with zingerone orally at 25 mg/kg b.w for 3 weeks at two different time points.

RESULTS

Adjuvant-treated rats exhibited a significant increase in lipid peroxidation and a reduction in the enzymatic antioxidants such as SOD, catalase and GPx, in the liver and joint tissues. Moreover, FCA inoculation resulted in the increase in levels of NF-κB, TGF-β, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6 and Hs-CRP and a decrease in IL-10 levels. Zingerone significantly reduced the levels of NF-κB, TGF-β, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6 and Hs-CRP and markedly increased IL-10 levels. Levels of antioxidant enzymes were also restored by zingerone treatment.

DISCUSSION

Oral administration of zingerone ameliorated inflammatory outburst and decreased oxidative stress, suggesting its role in the prevention of rheumatoid arthritis. Further mechanistic insights are necessary to study the exact mechanism involved.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular, renal or gastrointestinal comorbidities: joint APAGE/APLAR/APSDE/APSH/APSN/PoA recommendations

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications, but they are associated with a number of serious adverse effects, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney injury and GI complications.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of multidisciplinary recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs.

METHODS

Randomised control trials and observational studies published before January 2018 were reviewed, with 329 papers included for the synthesis of evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Whenever possible, a NSAID should be avoided in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, high risk of cardiovascular disease and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Before treatment with a NSAID is started, blood pressure should be measured, unrecognised CKD should be screened in high risk cases, and unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia should be investigated. For patients with high cardiovascular risk, and if NSAID treatment cannot be avoided, naproxen or celecoxib are preferred. For patients with a moderate risk of peptic ulcer disease, monotherapy with a non-selective NSAID plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), or a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor should be used; for those with a high risk of peptic ulcer disease, a selective COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI are needed. For patients with pre-existing hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system blockers, empirical addition (or increase in the dose) of an antihypertensive agent of a different class should be considered. Blood pressure and renal function should be monitored in most cases.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are a valuable armamentarium in clinical medicine, but appropriate recognition of high-risk cases, selection of a specific agent, choice of ulcer prophylaxis and monitoring after therapy are necessary to minimise the risk of adverse events.

Further Study of Influence of Panax notoginseng on Intestinal Absorption Characteristics of Triptolide and Tripterine in Rats with Tripterygium wilfordii

Background:

Tripterygium wilfordii (TW) is widely employed to treat rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune disorders clinically, which, however, accompany with disturbing hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity. The previous research showed that Panax notoginseng (PN) compatibly and significantly reduces the TW-induced hepatotoxicity.

Objective:

To explore the underlying mechanism, the present study was designed to reveal the influence of PN on the intestinal absorption process of TW-derived active components in rat.

Materials and Methods:

An in situ single-pass intestinal perfusion technique was established and preformed to obtain the perfusate samples of triptolide (TP), tripterine (TE), TW extract, and TW-PN extract. A rapid and sensitive ultra-performance liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method was subsequently developed and validated to determine the concentrations of TP and TE in the perfusate samples. Then, the absorption parameters, effective permeability, absorption rate constant, and percentage of 10 cm intestinal absorption were calculated strictly.

Results:

The final data indicated that both TP and TE have no special absorption site in the intestine and are primarily absorbed in a passive manner. Otherwise, the absorption of TP was decreased from compatibility of PN, but the absorption of TE was enhanced.

Conclusion:

The absorption reduction of TP and absorption elevation of TE from TW initiated by the combination of PN are contributed to attenuate the toxicity and reinforce the therapeutic efficacy of TW. It is practically reasonable of usage of TW compatibility with PN clinically.

SUMMARY

Panax notoginseng (PN) regulated the absorption process of Tripterygium wilfordii (TW) in intestine

Both triptolide (TP) and tripterine (TE), two typical components of TW, have no special absorption site in the intestine and are primarily absorbed in a passive manner

PN decreased the absorption of TP and enhanced the absorption of TE in the intestine.

Abbreviations used: 10 cm% ABS: percentage of 10 cm intestinal absorption, DMARDs: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, GU: Glycyrrhiza uralensis, K_a: Absorption rate constant, NSAIDs: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, P_eff: Effective permeability, PN: Panax notoginseng, QC: Quality control, RA: Rheumatoid arthritis, RG: Rehmannia glutinosa, SPIP: Single-pass intestinal perfusion, TE: Tripterine, TP: Triptolide, TW: Tripterygium wilfordii, UPLC-MS/MS: Ultra-performance liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

Ginsenoside Rg1 attenuates adjuvant-induced arthritis in rats via modulation of PPAR-γ/NF-κB signal pathway

Ginsenoside Rg1, the main active compound in Panax ginseng, has already been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects. However, the protective effects of Rg1 on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects and mechanisms of Rg1 on adjuvant-induced arthritis (AIA) in rats. AIA rats were given Rg1 at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg intraperitoneally for 14 days to observe the anti-arthritic effects. The results showed that Rg1 significantly alleviated joint swelling and injuries. Rg1 can also significantly reduce the level of TNF-α and IL-6, increase PPAR-γ protein expression, inhibit IκBα phosphorylation and NF-κB nuclear translocation in the inflammatory joints of AIA rats and RAW264.7 cells stimulated by lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The results indicate that Rg1 has therapeutic effects on AIA rats, and the mechanism might be associated with its anti-inflammatory effects by up-regulating PPAR-γ and subsequent inhibition of NF-κB signal pathway.

Tolerability of the COX-1/COX-2 inhibitor lornoxicam in the treatment of acute and rheumatic pain

Aim: To assess the safety of lornoxicam with particular focus on gastrointestinal (GI) events. Methods: Data on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were pooled from 60 comparative studies of lornoxicam. Results: A total of 6420 patients received lornoxicam, 1192 received placebo and 3770 received a comparator analgesic. ADRs were reported by 21% of lornoxicam-treated patients, with GI events the most frequent (14 vs 8% with placebo). Across 15 studies that compared lornoxicam (n = 1287) with another NSAID (n = 1010), there was a reduced risk of a GI ADR with lornoxicam (0.78 [95% CI: 0.64–0.96]; p = 0.017). Conclusion: Lornoxicam was well tolerated with the type of GI events observed consistent with the known safety profile of NSAIDs.

Comparing Nonrandomized Observational Studies With Randomized Controlled Trials in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the treatment effects of observational studies versus randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cervical disc arthroplasty.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RCTs can be logistically challenging and sometimes insufficiently generalizable; well-designed observational studies have been suggested as an alternative. We hypothesized that treatment effects of observational studies in cervical disc arthroplasty are similar to those of RCTs.

METHODS

We searched electronic database from 2000 to 2014. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the primary outcome from which the standardized pre-and-post mean difference (Hedges's g) was determined. Meta-analysis was performed to compare Hedges's g from observational studies to that of RCTs. Potential moderator variables including study quality, age, gender, industry sponsorship, location by continent, and disc types were also collected and analyzed. Observational studies were further stratified into prospective and retrospective, and they were compared to each other as well as to RCTs.

RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs, 28 observational studies, and one hybrid study for meta-analysis. NDI Hedges's g was 2.15 for RCTs and 2.03 for observational studies, which was not significant (P = 0.416). No significant difference was found in secondary outcomes. However, after further stratification, prospective observational studies had less treatment effect in Visual Analog Scale neck compared with that of RCTs (1.60 vs. 2.11, P = 0.006). RCTs recruited younger patients (44.1 vs. 45.6, P = 0.008) with worse NDI at baseline (54.30 vs. 46.92, P < 0.001). Patients treated with ProDisc-C showed less standardized improvement on the NDI compared with the patients treated with Prestige (1.41 vs. 2.48, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Prospective observational studies that utilize the same features of RCTs such as inclusion and exclusion criteria validated clinical outcomes, and statistical methods can provide valuable information about the treatment effects on a generalizable population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Discriminant Capacity of Clinical Efficacy and Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug-sparing Endpoints, Alone or in Combination, in Axial Spondyloarthritis

Objective.

Using data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we assessed the capacity of clinical and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID)-sparing endpoints, alone and in combination, to discriminate between treatment effects in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

Methods.

Patients with active NSAID-resistant axSpA received etanercept (ETN) 50 mg/week or placebo for 8 weeks and tapered/discontinued NSAID. In posthoc logistic regression analyses, OR were calculated that indicated the capacity of the following endpoints to discriminate between the effects of ETN and placebo at Week 8: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) 50; BASDAI ≤ 3; Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) 20; ASAS40; Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) with C-reactive protein (CRP) < 1.3 and ASDAS-CRP < 2.1; ≥ 50% decrease from baseline in ASAS-NSAID score, score < 10, and score = 0; and each clinical and/or each NSAID measure.

Results.

In 90 randomized patients (ETN, n = 42; placebo, n = 48), disease activity was similar between groups at baseline: mean (± SD) BASDAI (ETN vs placebo) 6.0 ± 1.6 versus 5.9 ± 1.5. NSAID intake was high: ASAS-NSAID score 98.2 ± 39.0 versus 93.0 ± 23.4. OR ranged from 1.6 (95% CI 0.5–5.4) for ASDAS-CRP < 1.3 to 5.8 (95% CI 1.2–29.1) for BASDAI50 and NSAID score of 0; most measures (34/45) reached statistical significance (α = 0.05) favoring ETN. Most combined outcome variables using OR were more discriminant than single outcome measures.

Conclusion.

These findings suggest that changes in NSAID intake during treatment do not prevent demonstration of clinically relevant effects of biologic treatment, and combined (i.e., clinical with NSAID-sparing) endpoints were frequently more discriminant than single (i.e., clinical) endpoints. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01298531).

Frankincense and myrrh suppress inflammation via regulation of the metabolic profiling and the MAPK signaling pathway

Frankincense and myrrh are highly effective in treatment of inflammatory diseases, but lacking of thetherapy mechanisms. We undertook this study to evaluate the effects on Adjuvant-induced Arthritis(AIA) rats and to explore the underlying mechanisms by analyzing the metabolic profiling and signalingpathway evaluated by expression of inflammatory cytokines, c-jun and c-fos and corresponding phosphorylationlevels. [corrected]. The results stated the elevated expression levels of TNFα, PGE2, IL-2, NO, and MDA in serum and swelling paw of AIA rats were significantly decreased after treatment, which exerted more remarkable inhibitive effects of combined therapy. The metbolic profiling of plasma and urine were clearly improved and twenty-one potential biomarkers were identified. Moreover, the inhibited effects of five bioactive components on cytokine transcription in PHA stimulated-PBMC showed the MAPK pathway might account for this phenomenon with considerable reduction in phosphorylated forms of all the three MAPK (ERK1/2, p38 and JNK) and down regulation of c-jun and c-fos.

Increased Risk of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Requiring Chronic Dialysis is Associated With Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs): Nationwide Case-Crossover Study

It is known that many medical adverse events can be caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); however, epidemiologic evidence has not granted an affirmative relationship between NSAID use and the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to investigate the relationship in a Chinese population between short-term NSAID use and development of ESRD requiring chronic dialysis. A retrospective case-crossover design was used in this study. Using the Taiwanese National Health Insurance database, we identified 109,400 incident chronic ESRD patients with dialysis initiation from 1998 to 2009. For each patient, we defined the case period as 1 to 14 days and the control period as 105 to 118 days, respectively, before the first dialysis date. The washout period was 90 days between the case and control period. Detailed information about NSAID use was compared between the case and control periods. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a conditional logistic regression model. NSAID use was found to be a significant risk factor associated with dialysis commencement. The adjusted OR was 2.73 (95% CI: 2.62-2.84) for nonselective NSAIDs and 2.17 (95% CI: 1.83-2.57) for celecoxib. The OR reached 3.05 for the use of acetic acid derivatives. Compared with the oral forms, significantly higher risks were seen in parenteral NSAID use (OR: 8.66, 95% CI: 6.12-20.19). NSAIDs should be prescribed with caution, especially for those in ESRD high-risk groups.

[Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs]

BACKGROUND

The selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor rofecoxib was withdrawn from the market in 2004 due to cardiovascular toxicity. We have evaluated data on adverse cardiovascular effects caused by COX-2 inhibitors and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) since 2004.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Searches in PubMed (2004-2014) identified 243 relevant articles. Following a selection process, 63 articles were reviewed and evaluated in light of Norwegian practice.

RESULTS

The results from the studies reviewed are heterogenous. A majority of data indicate that all the selective COX-2 inhibitors, diclofenac and high-dose ibuprofen cause adverse cardiovascular effects to a problematic extent, whereas naproxen consistently exhibits low or no risk. For most NSAIDs high dosage is related to increased risk, and the increase in risk appears to be present from the start of treatment. The effects of length of treatment and predisposition for cardiovascular disease are less clear.

INTERPRETATION

Adverse cardiovascular effects is as a group effect that applies to all the NSAIDs studied, except for naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen. The traditional classification of NSAIDs as COX-2 selective and non-selective drugs is unsuited for risk stratification. The current pattern of consumption of NSAIDs in the population does not correspond to our knowledge of the increased risk to which patients are exposed.

Evaluation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-sparing effect of etanercept in axial spondyloarthritis: results of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SPARSE study

INTRODUCTION

In clinical practice, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly discontinued after response to biologic therapy is achieved in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the impact of NSAID discontinuation has not been assessed in prospective controlled trials. The aim of the SPARSE study was to evaluate the effects of the anti-tumor necrosis factor agent etanercept on NSAID intake and conventional clinical outcomes in axSpA patients.

METHODS

In the double-blind, placebo-controlled period, patients with active (mini Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥4) axSpA despite optimal NSAID intake were randomized to receive etanercept 50 mg or placebo once weekly for 8 weeks. All patients were advised to taper/discontinue their NSAID intake during the treatment period. NSAID intake was self-reported by diary and Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-NSAID scores calculated based on ASAS recommendations. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in ASAS-NSAID score (analysis of covariance).

RESULTS

In 90 randomized patients at baseline, mean age (standard deviation) was 38.9 (11.8) years; disease duration, 5.7 (8.1) years; 59/90 (66%) were human leukocyte antigen-B27 positive; 51/90 (57%) had radiographic sacroiliitis; and 45/90 (50%) were magnetic resonance imaging sacroiliitis-positive. Mean ASAS-NSAID scores were similar between etanercept and placebo groups at baseline (98.2 (39.0) versus 93.0 (23.4)), as were BASDAI (6.0 (1.7) versus 5.9 (1.5)), and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (5.2 (2.1) versus 5.1 (2.2)). Mean changes (SE) in ASAS-NSAID score from baseline to week 8 were -63.9 (6.1) and -36.6 (5.9) in the etanercept and placebo groups (between-group difference, -27.3; P = 0.002). Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving etanercept versus placebo had an ASAS-NSAID score <10 (46% versus 17%; P = 0.008) and ASAS-NSAID score of 0 (41% versus 14%; P = 0.013) at this time point. Significantly more patients in the etanercept versus placebo group achieved BASDAI50 (39% versus 18%; P = 0.032) and ASAS40 (44% versus 21%; P = 0.028) at week 8.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with axSpA, etanercept was associated with clinically relevant NSAID-sparing effects in addition to significant improvements in conventional clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01298531. Registered 16 February 2011.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of a pelubiprofen versus celecoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III, non-inferiority clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pelubiprofen is a prodrug of 2-arylpropionic acid with relatively selective effects on cyclooxygenase-2 activity. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of pelubiprofen with those of celecoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

This was a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase III, non-inferiority clinical trial. The primary end point was non-inferiority of pain decrease from baseline to week-6 as determined using a 100 mm pain visual analog scale (VAS). Pelubiprofen was considered non-inferior to celecoxib if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for treatment difference [(pain reduction in pelubiprofen group) - (pain reduction in celecoxib group)] was more than -10 mm. The secondary end points were as follows: non-inferiority of (1) reduction of Korean health assessment questionnaire (KHAQ) score; (2) decreased duration of morning stiffness; and (3) decrease in the frequency and total dose of rescue drugs after 6 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients in the pelubiprofen group and 68 patients in the celecoxib group started the study medication. Pelubiprofen was non-inferior to celecoxib with regard to reduction in VAS pain severity (difference, mean ± SD 5.0 ± 20.1; 97.5% CI, -2.3 to ∞). Pelubiprofen was also non-inferior to celecoxib in terms of the secondary end points, such as, decrease in KHAQ score (0.0 ± 0.5, 97.5% CI -0.2 to ∞), decrease in duration of morning stiffness (median 0.0 minute in both groups), and decrease in the frequency (0.7 ± 3.5, 97.5% CI -0.6 to ∞) and total amount (0.7 ± 3.6, 97.5% CI -0.6 to ∞) of rescue medication uses during the 6 week study period. Safety analysis revealed 31.2% patients in the pelubiprofen group and 20.6% patients in the celecoxib group experienced an adverse drug reaction (ADR). The frequency of gastrointestinal ADRs was 20.8 % and 8.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelubiprofen was found to be as effective as celecoxib at pain reduction and for relieving stiffness in RA patients. However, more patients in the pelubiprofen group experienced ADR and the frequency of gastrointestinal ADRs was higher in the pelubiprofen group. ClinialTrials.gov identifier: NCT01781702.

Myocardial infarction and individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs meta-analysis of observational studies

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with use of individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Methods

A search of Medline (PubMed) for observational studies published from 1990 to 2011 identified 3829 articles; 31 reported relative risk (RR) of AMI with use of individual NSAIDs versus nonuse of NSAIDs. Information abstracted in a standardized form from 25 publications was used for the meta-analysis on 18 independent study populations.

Results

Random-effects RR (95% confidence interval (CI)) was lowest for naproxen 1.06 (0.94–1.20), followed by celecoxib 1.12 (1.00–1.24), ibuprofen 1.14 (0.98–1.31), meloxicam 1.25 (1.04–1.49), rofecoxib 1.34 (1.22–1.48), diclofenac 1.38 (1.26–1.52), indometacin 1.40 (1.21–1.62), etodolac 1.55 (1.16–2.06), and etoricoxib 1.97 (1.35–2.89). Heterogeneity between studies was present. For new users, RRs (95% CIs) were for naproxen, 0.85 (0.73–1.00); ibuprofen, 1.20 (0.97–1.48); celecoxib, 1.23 (1.00–1.52); diclofenac, 1.41 (1.08–1.86); and rofecoxib, 1.43 (1.21–1.66).

Except for naproxen, higher risk was generally associated with higher doses, as defined in each study, overall and in patients with prior coronary heart disease. Low and high doses of diclofenac and rofecoxib were associated with high risk of AMI, with dose–response relationship for rofecoxib. In patients with prior coronary heart disease, except for naproxen, duration of use ≤3 months was associated with an increased risk of AMI.

Conclusions

Most frequently NSAIDs used in clinical practice, except naproxen, are associated with an increased risk of AMI at high doses or in persons with diagnosed coronary heart disease. For diclofenac and rofecoxib, the risk was increased at low and high doses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and modifications of existing designs, including both randomized and observational, are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population.A systematic analysis of study design features, risk of bias, parameter interpretation, and effect size for all types of randomized and non-experimental observational studies is needed to identify specific differences in design types and potential biases. This review summarizes the results of methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of observational studies with randomized trials addressing the same question, as well as methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of different types of observational studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of study design (including RCTs versus observational study designs) on the effect measures estimated.To explore methodological variables that might explain any differences identified.To identify gaps in the existing research comparing study designs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases, from January 1990 to December 2013.Along with MeSH terms and relevant keywords, we used the sensitivity-specificity balanced version of a validated strategy to identify reviews in PubMed, augmented with one term ("review" in article titles) so that it better targeted narrative reviews. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We examined systematic reviews that were designed as methodological reviews to compare quantitative effect size estimates measuring efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in trials with those tested in observational studies. Comparisons included RCTs versus observational studies (including retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control designs, and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared randomized trials with other studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In general, outcome measures included relative risks or rate ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR). Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the published estimates to see whether there was a relative larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR).Within each identified review, if an estimate comparing results from observational studies with RCTs was not provided, we pooled the estimates for observational studies and RCTs. Then, we estimated the ratio of ratios (risk ratio or odds ratio) for each identified review using observational studies as the reference category. Across all reviews, we synthesized these ratios to get a pooled ROR comparing results from RCTs with results from observational studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 4406 unique references. Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria; 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis.The included reviews analyzed data from 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions. The mean number of included studies per paper was 178 (range 19 to 530).Eleven (73%) reviews had low risk of bias for explicit criteria for study selection, nine (60%) were low risk of bias for investigators' agreement for study selection, five (33%) included a complete sample of studies, seven (47%) assessed the risk of bias of their included studies,Seven (47%) reviews controlled for methodological differences between studies,Eight (53%) reviews controlled for heterogeneity among studies, nine (60%) analyzed similar outcome measures, and four (27%) were judged to be at low risk of reporting bias.Our primary quantitative analysis, including 14 reviews, showed that the pooled ROR comparing effects from RCTs with effects from observational studies was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22). Of 14 reviews included in this analysis, 11 (79%) found no significant difference between observational studies and RCTs. One review suggested observational studies had larger effects of interest, and two reviews suggested observational studies had smaller effects of interest.Similar to the effect across all included reviews, effects from reviews comparing RCTs with cohort studies had a pooled ROR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 68%). Three reviews compared effects of RCTs and case-control designs (pooled ROR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)).No significant difference in point estimates across heterogeneity, pharmacological intervention, or propensity score adjustment subgroups were noted. No reviews had compared RCTs with observational studies that used two of the most common causal inference methods, instrumental variables and marginal structural models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are very similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions. Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Ischemic heart disease in systemic inflammatory diseases. An appraisal

Systemic inflammatory diseases are inflammatory syndromes that are associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The link between inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases can be attributed to coexistence of classical risk factors and of inflammatory mechanisms activated in systemic inflammatory diseases and involving the immune system. Yet, clinical implications of these findings are not entirely clear and deeper knowledge and awareness of cardiac involvement in inflammatory diseases are necessary. The aims of this review are to summarize cardiac involvement in systemic inflammatory diseases and to identify areas where evidence is currently lacking that deserve further investigation in the future.

Bioinformatics analysis for the antirheumatic effects of huang-lian-jie-du-tang from a network perspective

Huang-Lian-Jie-Du-Tang (HLJDT) is a classic TCM formula to clear “heat” and “poison” that exhibits antirheumatic activity. Here we investigated the therapeutic mechanisms of HLJDT at protein network level using bioinformatics approach. It was found that HLJDT shares 5 target proteins with 3 types of anti-RA drugs, and several pathways in immune system and bone formation are significantly regulated by HLJDT's components, suggesting the therapeutic effect of HLJDT on RA. By defining an antirheumatic effect score to quantitatively measure the therapeutic effect, we found that the score of each HLJDT's component is very low, while the whole HLJDT achieves a much higher effect score, suggesting a synergistic effect of HLJDT achieved by its multiple components acting on multiple targets. At last, topological analysis on the RA-associated PPI network was conducted to illustrate key roles of HLJDT's target proteins on this network. Integrating our findings with TCM theory suggests that HLJDT targets on hub nodes and main pathway in the Hot ZENG network, and thus it could be applied as adjuvant treatment for Hot-ZENG-related RA. This study may facilitate our understanding of antirheumatic effect of HLJDT and it may suggest new approach for the study of TCM pharmacology.

Comparison of pooled risk estimates for adverse effects from different observational study designs: methodological overview

BACKGROUND

A diverse range of study designs (e.g. case-control or cohort) are used in the evaluation of adverse effects. We aimed to ascertain whether the risk estimates from meta-analyses of case-control studies differ from that of other study designs.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in 10 databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, and handsearching key journals and conference proceedings. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from case-control studies could be directly compared with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from other types of observational studies.

RESULTS

We included 82 meta-analyses. Pooled estimates of harm from the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped in 78/82 instances (95%). Of the 23 cases of discrepant findings (significant harm identified in meta-analysis of one type of study design, but not with the other study design), 16 (70%) stemmed from significantly elevated pooled estimates from case-control studies. There was associated evidence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with higher risk estimates from case-control studies. On average, cohort or cross-sectional studies yielded pooled odds ratios 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-1.00) times lower than that from case-control studies.

INTERPRETATION

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that meta-analysis of case-control studies tend to give slightly higher estimates of harm as compared to meta-analyses of other observational studies. However it is impossible to rule out potential confounding from differences in drug dose, duration and populations when comparing between study designs.

Metabolomic study of collagen-induced arthritis in rats and the interventional effects of huang-lian-jie-du-tang, a traditional chinese medicine

Huang-Lian-Jie-Du-Tang (HLJDT) is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) with anti-inflammatory activity. The present study used a metabolomic approach based on LC-Q-TOF-MS to profile rheumatoid-arthritis- (RA-) related metabolic changes and to investigate the interventional mechanisms of HLJDT in collagen-induced arthritis rats. Forty male Wistar rats were randomly divided into five groups: (1) a model group, (2) a normal control group, (3) a dexamethasone group, (4) a HLJDT group, and (5) a group that received 13 components of HLJDT. Plasma samples were collected 8, 15, and 22 days after the rats were injected with bovine type II collagen. By combining variable importance in the projection values with partial least squares discriminant analysis, 18 potential biomarkers were identified in the plasma samples. The biomarkers were primarily involved in glycerophospholipid metabolism, fatty acid metabolism, tryptophan metabolism, linoleic acid metabolism, phenylalanine metabolism, purine metabolism, arachidonic acid metabolism, and bile acid biosynthesis. Using the potential biomarkers as a screening index, the results suggest that HLJDT can potentially reverse the process of RA by partially regulating fatty acid oxidation and arachidonic acid metabolism. This study demonstrates that a metabolomic strategy is useful for identifying potential RA biomarkers and investigating the underlying mechanisms of a TCM in RA treatment.

Risk of new acute myocardial infarction hospitalization associated with use of oral and parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs): a case-crossover study of Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims database and review of current evidence

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have documented the increased cardiovascular risk associated with the use of some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Despite this, many old NSAIDs are still prescribed worldwide. Most of the studies to date have been focused on specific oral drugs or limited by the number of cases examined. We studied the risk of new acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization with current use of a variety of oral and parenteral NSAIDs in a nationwide population, and compared our results with existing evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a case-crossover study using the Taiwan's National Health Insurance claim database, identifying patients with new AMI hospitalized in 2006. The 1-30 days and 91-120 days prior to the admission were defined as case and matched control period for each patient, respectively. Uses of NSAIDs during the respective periods were compared using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for use of co-medications.

RESULTS

8354 new AMI hospitalization patients fulfilled the study criteria. 14 oral and 3 parenteral NSAIDs were selected based on drug utilization profile among 13.7 million NSAID users. The adjusted odds ratio, aOR (95% confidence interval), for risk of AMI and use of oral and parenteral non-selective NSAIDs were 1.42 (1.29, 1.56) and 3.35 (2.50, 4.47), respectively, and significantly greater for parenteral than oral drugs (p for interaction<0.01). Ketorolac was associated with the highest AMI risk among both of oral and parenteral NSAIDs studied, the aORs were 2.02 (1.00, 4.09) and 4.27 (2.90, 6.29) respectively. Use of oral flurbiprofen, ibuprofen, sulindac, diclofenac, and parenteral ketoprofen were also significantly associated with increased AMI risk. The results of the present study were consistent with the majority of evidence from previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The collective evidence revealed the tendency of increased AMI risk with current use of some NSAIDs. A higher AMI risk associated with use of parenteral NSAIDs was observed in the present study. Ketorolac had the highest associated risk in both oral and parenteral NSAIDs studied. Though further investigation to confirm the association is warranted, prescribing physicians and the general public should be cautious about the potential risk of AMI when using NSAIDs.

Pain management for rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Pain in rheumatoid arthritis is common, is often multi-factorial and many different pharmacotherapeutic agents are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that some of the pain pharmacotherapies currently used may increase the risk of adverse events in people with rheumatoid arthritis and concurrent cardiovascular or renal disease.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess and collate the scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of using pain pharmacotherapy in people with rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4); MEDLINE, from 1950; EMBASE, from 1980; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We also handsearched the conference proceedings for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) for 2008-09, and checked the websites of regulatory agencies for reported adverse events, labels and warnings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing the efficacy and safety of pain pharmacotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with and without comorbid cardiovascular or renal conditions.In addition, we also considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort and case control studies and case series (N ≥ 20) to assess safety.For the purpose of our review, pain pharmacotherapy was defined as including simple analgesics (such as paracetamol), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids or opioid-like drugs (such as tramadol), and neuromodulators (including anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, and muscle relaxants).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results and planned to extract data and appraise the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Many of the trials of NSAIDs explicitly excluded patients with cardiovascular or renal comorbidities.We did identify one trial that reported evidence in mixed populations (including both rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis) taking either diclofenac or etoricoxib. In this study, the presence of cardiovascular disease increased the likelihood of a further cardiovascular event three-fold. Patients with two or more cardiovascular comorbidities showed a two-fold increased likelihood of adverse cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no trials that specifically compared the efficacy and safety of pain pharmacotherapies for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with and without comorbid cardiovascular or renal conditions.In the absence of specific evidence in rheumatoid arthritis, current guidelines recommend that NSAIDs be used with caution in the general rheumatoid arthritis population while highlighting the added need for extra vigilance in patients with established cardiovascular disease or risk factors for its development. Current guidelines regarding the use of NSAIDs and opioids in moderate to severe renal impairment should also be applied to the rheumatoid arthritis population.Further research is required to guide clinicians when treating pain in rheumatoid arthritis.

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

The management of cancer pain

The experience of pain in cancer is widely accepted as a major threat to quality of life, and the relief of pain has emerged as a priority in oncology care. Pain is associated with both the disease as well as treatment, and management is essential from the onset of early disease through long-term survivorship or end-of-life care. Effective relief of pain is contingent upon a comprehensive assessment to identify physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects and as a foundation for multidisciplinary interventions. Fortunately, advances in pain treatment and in the field of palliative care have provided effective treatments encompassing pharmacological, cognitive-behavioral, and other approaches. The field of palliative care has emphasized that attention to symptoms such as pain is integral to quality cancer care.

Quality measures for the diagnosis and non-operative management of carpal tunnel syndrome in occupational settings

INTRODUCTION

Providing higher quality medical care to workers with occupationally associated carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may reduce disability, facilitate return to work, and lower the associated costs. Although many workers' compensation systems have adopted treatment guidelines to reduce the overuse of unnecessary care, limited attention has been paid to ensuring that the care workers do receive is high quality. Further, guidelines are not designed to enable objective assessments of quality of care. This study sought to develop quality measures for the diagnostic evaluation and non-operative management of CTS, including managing occupational activities and functional limitations.

METHODS

Using a variation of the well-established RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, we developed draft quality measures using guidelines and literature reviews. Next, in a two-round modified-Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 11 U.S. experts in CTS rated the measures on validity and feasibility.

RESULTS

Of 40 draft measures, experts rated 31 (78%) valid and feasible. Nine measures pertained to diagnostic evaluation, such as assessing symptoms, signs, and risk factors. Eleven pertain to non-operative treatments, such as the use of splints, steroid injections, and medications. Eleven others address assessing the association between symptoms and work, managing occupational activities, and accommodating functional limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

These measures will complement existing treatment guidelines by enabling providers, payers, policymakers, and researchers to assess quality of care for CTS in an objective, structured manner. Given the characteristics of previous measures developed with these methods, greater adherence to these measures will probably lead to improved patient outcomes at a population level.

Development and evaluation of a common data model enabling active drug safety surveillance using disparate healthcare databases

OBJECTIVE

Active drug safety surveillance may be enhanced by analysis of multiple observational healthcare databases, including administrative claims and electronic health records. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a common data model (CDM) enabling rapid, comparable, systematic analyses across disparate observational data sources to identify and evaluate the effects of medicines.

DESIGN

The CDM uses a person-centric design, with attributes for demographics, drug exposures, and condition occurrence. Drug eras, constructed to represent periods of persistent drug use, are derived from available elements from pharmacy dispensings, prescriptions written, and other medication history. Condition eras aggregate diagnoses that occur within a single episode of care. Drugs and conditions from source data are mapped to biomedical ontologies to standardize terminologies and enable analyses of higher-order effects.

MEASUREMENTS

The CDM was applied to two source types: an administrative claims and an electronic medical record database. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate transformation rules. Two case studies demonstrate the ability of the CDM to enable standard analyses across disparate sources: analyses of persons exposed to rofecoxib and persons with an acute myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

Over 43 million persons, with nearly 1 billion drug exposures and 3.7 billion condition occurrences from both databases were successfully transformed into the CDM. An analysis routine applied to transformed data from each database produced consistent, comparable results.

CONCLUSION

A CDM can normalize the structure and content of disparate observational data, enabling standardized analyses that are meaningfully comparable when assessing the effects of medicines.

Administrative claims data analysis of nurse practitioner prescribing for older adults

AIM

This paper is a report of a study to identify the patterns of prescribing by primary health care nurse practitioners for a cohort of older adults.

BACKGROUND

The older adult population is known to receive complex pharmacotherapy. Monitoring prescribing to older adults can inform quality improvement initiatives. In comparison to other countries, research examining nurse practitioner prescribing in Canada is limited. Nurse practitioner prescribing for older adults is relatively unexplored in the international literature. Although commonly used to study physician prescribing, few studies have used claims data from drug insurance programmes to investigate nurse practitioner prescribing.

METHOD

Drug claims for prescriptions written by nurse practitioners from fiscal years 2004/05 to 2006/07 for beneficiaries of the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare programme were analysed. Data were retrieved and analysed in May 2008. Prescribing was described for each drug using the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code classification system by usage and costs for each fiscal year.

RESULTS

Antimicrobials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs consistently represented the top ranked groups for prescription volume and cost. Over the three fiscal years, antimicrobial prescription rates declined relative to rates of other groups of medications. Prescription volume per nurse doubled and cost per prescription increased by approximately 20%.

CONCLUSION

Prescription claims data can be used to characterize the prescribing trends of nurse practitioners. Research linking patient characteristics, including diagnoses, to prescriptions is needed to assess prescribing quality. Some potential areas of improvement were identified with antimicrobial and non-steroidal antiinflammatory selection.

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is characterised by persistent synovitis, systemic inflammation, and autoantibodies (particularly to rheumatoid factor and citrullinated peptide). 50% of the risk for development of rheumatoid arthritis is attributable to genetic factors. Smoking is the main environmental risk. In industrialised countries, rheumatoid arthritis affects 0·5-1·0% of adults, with 5-50 per 100 000 new cases annually. The disorder is most typical in women and elderly people. Uncontrolled active rheumatoid arthritis causes joint damage, disability, decreased quality of life, and cardiovascular and other comorbidities. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the key therapeutic agents, reduce synovitis and systemic inflammation and improve function. The leading DMARD is methotrexate, which can be combined with other drugs of this type. Biological agents are used when arthritis is uncontrolled or toxic effects arise with DMARDs. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors were the first biological agents, followed by abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab. Infections and high costs restrict prescription of biological agents. Long-term remission induced by intensive, short-term treatment selected by biomarker profiles is the ultimate goal.

Increased Risk of Stroke Associated With Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Background and Purpose— Limited studies assessed cerebrovascular safety of individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We evaluated the risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke associated with short-term use of selective and nonselective NSAIDs in a Chinese population with a high incidence of stroke.

Methods— A retrospective case–crossover study was conducted by analyzing the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database. We identified all ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients in 2006, aged ≥20 years, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes from inpatient claims and defined the index date as the date of hospitalization. For each patient, we defined case period as 1 to 30 days before the index date and control period as 91 to 120 days before the index date. A pharmacy prescription database was searched for NSAID use during the case and control periods. We calculated adjusted ORs and their 95% CIs with a conditional logistic regression model.

Results— A total of 28 424 patients with ischemic stroke and 9456 patients with hemorrhagic stroke were included. For ischemic stroke, a modest increased risk was evident for all oral NSAIDs with adjusted ORs (95% CI) ranging from1.20 (1.00 to 1.44) for celecoxib to 1.90 (1.39 to 2.60) for ketorolac. For hemorrhagic stroke, oral ketorolac was associated with a significantly higher risk with OR of 2.69 (1.56 to 4.66). Significantly increased risk was found for parenteral NSAIDs, in particular ketorolac, with an OR of 3.92 (3.25 to 4.72) for ischemic stroke and 5.98 (4.40 to 8.13) for hemorrhagic stroke.

Conclusions— Use of selective and nonselective NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk of both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, strikingly high for parenteral ketorolac.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-related injury to the gastrointestinal tract: clinical picture, pathogenesis, and prevention

Increasing life expectancy in developed countries has led to a growing prevalence of arthritic disorders, which has been accompanied by increasing prescriptions for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These are the most widely used agents for musculoskeletal and arthritic conditions. Although NSAIDs are effective, their use is associated with a broad spectrum of adverse reactions in the liver, kidney, cardiovascular system, skin, and gut. Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are the most common. The dilemma for the physician prescribing NSAIDs is, therefore, to maintain the antiinflammatory and analgesic benefits, while reducing or preventing GI side effects. The challenge is to develop safer NSAIDs by shifting from a focus on GI toxicity to the increasingly more appreciated cardiovascular toxicity.

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: An Overview of Cardiovascular Risks

While aspirin may offer protection, other non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can cause serious cardiovascular side effects and complications. This has led to a general "black box" warning for cardiovascular adverse events for NSAIDs. This review explores the different mechanisms underlying the protective effects of aspirin, the NSAID associated renovascular effects causing hypertension, edema and heart failure, the cardiovascular effects causing myocardial infarction and stroke, and the possible deleterious interaction between NSAIDs and aspirin.