Accounting for the increase in NSAID expenditure: substitution or leakage?

Eco-pharmacovigilance of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Necessity and opportunities

Eco-pharmacovigilance (EPV) is a practical and powerful approach to minimize the potential risks posed by pharmaceutical residues in environment. However, it is impracticable to practise rigorous and unitary EPV process for all the existing and new pharmaceuticals. Here, we focused on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and discussed the necessity and potential opportunities of practising EPV of NSAIDs. We found that the consumption of NSAIDs is huge and ubiquitous across the globe. NSAIDs were worldwidely reported as one of the most dominant and frequently detected groups in environmental matrices including wastewater, surface water, suspended solids, sediments, groundwater, even drinking water. Besides, there is definitive evidence for the adverse impacts of NSAID residues on scavenging birds and aquatic species. These data suggested the necessity of implementing EPV of NSAIDs. From the perspective of drug administration, we identified some things that can be done as management practice options for EPV implementation on NSAIDs.

Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off

BACKGROUND

Multiple principles are relevant in priority setting, two of which are often considered particularly important. According to the greater benefit principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention with the greater health benefit. This principle is intimately linked to the goal of health maximization and standard cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). According to the worse off principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention benefiting those initially worse off. This principle is often linked to an idea of equity. Together, the two principles accord with prioritarianism; a view which can motivate non-standard CEA. Crucial for the actual application of prioritarianism is the trade-off between the two principles, and this trade-off has received scant attention when the worse off are specified in terms of lifetime health. This paper sheds light on that specific trade-off and on the public support for prioritarianism by providing fresh empirical evidence and by clarifying the close links between the findings and normative theory.

METHODS

A new, self-administered, computer-based questionnaire was used, to which 96 students in Norway responded. How respondents wanted to balance quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained against benefiting those with few lifetime QALYs was quantified for a range of different cases.

RESULTS

Respondents supported both principles and were willing to make trade-offs in a particular way. In the baseline case, the median response valued a QALY 3.3 and 2.5 times more when benefiting someone with lifetime QALYs of 10 and 25 rather than 70. Average responses harbored fundamental disagreements and varied modestly across distributional settings.

CONCLUSION

In the specific context of lifetime health, the findings underscore the insufficiency of pure QALY maximization and explicate how people make trade-offs in a way that can help operationalize lifetime prioritarianism and non-standard CEA. Seen through the lens of normative theory, the findings highlight key challenges for prioritarianism applied to priority setting.

Analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip requiring joint replacement surgery: a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy, noninferiority study

BACKGROUND

The hip is the second most common large joint that is affected by osteoarthritis (OA), with prevalence ranging from 3% to 11% in patients aged > or = 35 years. OA is often associated with significant pain, disability, and impaired quality of life. Treatment should be tailored according to the level of pain, disability, and handicap. Pharmacologic treatment options for hip OA include acetaminophen (recommended by the European League Against Rheumatism as a first-line treatment), NSAIDs such as diclofenac, and cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs such as celecoxib.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether celecoxib 200 mg QD is noninferior to diclofenac 50 mg TID in the treatment of OA of the hip.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy, noninferiority study conducted at 40 centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with OA flare at baseline (determined by visual analog scale [VAS] measurement of > or = 40 to < 90 mm and patient's and physician's global assessments of arthritis ratings of "poor" or "very poor") and awaiting joint replacement surgery were randomized to receive celecoxib QD or diclofenac TID. Patients were excluded if surgery was anticipated within 8 weeks. The United Kingdom National Health Service initiatives on waiting-list times caused a reduction in the number of potential patients available for participation. Therefore, the study protocol was amended such that change from baseline to week 6 (as opposed to week 12) in the patient's assessment of arthritis pain on walking, measured by VAS (0-100 mm), was the primary outcome. Primary analysis was carried out on the evaluable population (subjects with baseline and week 6 arthritis pain on walking VAS scores and no major protocol deviations). Celecoxib was declared noninferior to diclofenac if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (celecoxib vs diclofenac) in the mean change from baseline in VAS did not exceed 10 mm. Tolerability was assessed by the documentation of observed and volunteered adverse events (AEs), physical examination findings, sitting blood pressure, and pulse at screening and at the end of the study (week 12 or early withdrawal).

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients aged > or = 45 years were randomized to treatment. There were 126 patients in the celecoxib group and 123 patients in the diclofenac group. One patient in the celecoxib group did not receive any treatment and was excluded from analysis. Additionally, 54 patients in the celecoxib group and 45 patients in the diclofenac group discontinued treatment due to AEs and/or lack of treatment effectiveness. Therefore, 71 patients in the celecoxib group and 78 patients in the diclofenac group completed the study. No significant differences in demographic characteristics were observed between treatment groups. The mean (SD) age was 64.0 (9.0) years, 53.9% (76/141) of the patients were men and 46.1% (65/141) were women, and 99.3% (140/141) were white. At weeks 6 and 12, the patient's assessment of arthritis pain on walking (VAS) improved in both groups (-20.0 [23.6] mm in the celecoxib group and -35 [27.0] mm in the diclofenac group [mean treatment difference, 14.4 mm; 95% CI, 6.1 to 22.7]). However, treatment differences in change from baseline favored diclofenac at week 6 (14.4 mm; 95% CI, 6.1 to 22.7) and week 12 (12.2 mm; 95% CI, 2.2 to 22.1). A post hoc analysis, performed after unblinding due to an imbalance in the numbers of patients previously receiving NSAIDs, found a greater treatment difference at week 6 between celecoxib and diclofenac in arthritis pain, favoring diclofenac, in previous nonusers of NSAIDs (n = 49, 18.6 mm; 95% CI, 4.5 to 32.8) compared with previous NSAID users (n = 92, 9.5 mm; 95% CI, -0.4 to 19.3). Celecoxib and diclofenac were generally well tolerated. A similar proportion of patients in both treatment groups experienced AEs (all causality): 67/125 of celecoxib-treated patients (53.6%) compared with 66/123 of diclofenac-treated patients (53.7%).

CONCLUSION

This study did not demonstrate noninferiority of celecoxib 200 mg QD to diclofenac 50 mg TID in treating arthritis pain in patients with OA of the hip requiring joint replacement.