New Diagnosis of Hypertension among Celecoxib and Nonselective NSAID Users: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Evaluating the Representativeness of US Centricity Electronic Medical Records With Reports From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Comparative Study on Office Visits and Cardiometabolic Conditions

Background

Electronic medical record (EMR)–based clinical and epidemiological research has dramatically increased over the last decade, although establishing the generalizability of such big databases for conducting epidemiological studies has been an ongoing challenge. To draw meaningful inferences from such studies, it is essential to fully understand the characteristics of the underlying population and potential biases in EMRs.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the generalizability and representativity of the widely used US Centricity Electronic Medical Record (CEMR), a primary and ambulatory care EMR for population health research, using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES).

Methods

The number of office visits reported in the NAMCS, designed to meet the need for objective and reliable information about the provision and the use of ambulatory medical care services, was compared with similar data from the CEMR. The distribution of major cardiometabolic diseases in the NHANES, designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States, was compared with similar data from the CEMR.

Results

Gender and ethnicity distributions were similar between the NAMCS and the CEMR. Younger patients (aged <15 years) were underrepresented in the CEMR compared with the NAMCS. The number of office visits per 100 persons per year was similar: 277.9 (95% CI 259.3-296.5) in the NAMCS and 284.6 (95% CI 284.4-284.7) in the CEMR. However, the number of visits for males was significantly higher in the CEMR (CEMR: 270.8 and NAMCS: 239.0). West and South regions were underrepresented and overrepresented, respectively, in the CEMR. The overall prevalence of diabetes along with age and gender distribution was similar in the CEMR and the NHANES: overall prevalence, 10.1% and 9.7%; male, 11.5% and 10.8%; female, 9.1% and 8.8%; age 20 to 40 years, 2.5% and 1.8%; and age 40 to 60 years, 9.4% and 11.1%, respectively. The prevalence of obesity was similar: 42.1% and 39.6%, with similar age and female distribution (41.5% and 41.1%) but different male distribution (42.7% and 37.9%). The overall prevalence of high cholesterol along with age and female distribution was similar in the CEMR and the NHANES: overall prevalence, 12.4% and 12.4%; and female, 14.8% and 13.2%, respectively. The overall prevalence of hypertension was significantly higher in the CEMR (33.5%) than in the NHANES (95% CI: 27.0%-31.0%).

Conclusions

The distribution of major cardiometabolic diseases in the CEMR is comparable with the national survey results. The CEMR represents the general US population well in terms of office visits and major chronic conditions, whereas the potential subgroup differences in terms of age and gender distribution and prevalence may differ and, therefore, should be carefully taken care of in future studies.

Use of Prescription Medications That Potentially Interfere With Blood Pressure Control in New-Onset Hypertension and Treatment-Resistant Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Withdrawing medications that interfere with blood pressure (BP) is recommended in patients with uncontrolled BP, yet real-world use of such agents is not well characterized among individuals with hypertension. We aimed to evaluate the use of BP-interfering prescription medications among US patients with hypertension.

METHODS

This retrospective drug utilization study used medical and prescription claims (January 2008 to December 2014) in the MarketScan commercial claims database. We included adults, aged 18-65 years, with a hypertension diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 401) and ≥1 antihypertensive medication fill. Two hypertension cohorts were examined-new antihypertensive drug users (incident hypertension) and patients requiring titration to a fourth antihypertensive (incident treatment-resistant hypertension [TRH]). Patient-level exposure to BP-interfering medications was assessed 6 months before and after the index date, defined as the first prescription fill of an antihypertensive drug or the first occurrence of overlapping use of ≥4 antihypertensive drugs.

RESULTS

We identified 521,028 patients with incident hypertension and 131,764 patients with incident TRH. The most prevalent BP-interfering prescription medications were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophens, and hormones. Overall, 18.3% of the incident hypertension cohort and 17.6% of the incident TRH cohort initiated a BP-interfering medication following antihypertensive titration. Among patients previously taking a BP-interfering medication, 57.6% with incident hypertension and 64.9% with incident TRH refilled that medication after antihypertensive intensification.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prescription BP-interfering medications, especially NSAIDs, is prevalent among patients requiring intensification of their antihypertensive regimen. Greater efforts to limit the use of these medications, where feasible, may be required among patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Drug induced hypertension--An unappreciated cause of secondary hypertension

Most patients with hypertension have essential hypertension or well-known forms of secondary hypertension, such as renal disease, renal artery stenosis, or common endocrine diseases (hyperaldosteronism or pheochromocytoma). Physicians are less aware of drug induced hypertension. A variety of therapeutic agents or chemical substances may increase blood pressure. When a patient with well controlled hypertension is presented with acute blood pressure elevation, use of drug or chemical substance which increases blood pressure should be suspected. Drug-induced blood pressure increases are usually minor and short-lived, although rare hypertensive emergencies associated with use of certain drugs have been reported. Careful evaluation of prescription and non-prescription medications is crucial in the evaluation of the hypertensive individual and may obviate the need for expensive and unnecessary evaluations. Discontinuation of the offending agent will usually achieve adequate blood pressure control. When use of a chemical agent which increases blood pressure is mandatory, anti-hypertensive therapy may facilitate continued use of this agent. We summarize the therapeutic agents or chemical substances that elevate blood pressure and their mechanisms of action.

Incident depression increases medical utilization in Medicaid patients with hypertension

Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and occurs disproportionately among patients with depression. Few studies have rigorously examined outcomes specifically among hypertensive patients with newly diagnosed comorbid depression.

AIM

We hypothesized that incident depression would exacerbate hypertensive disease and that this would be evident through greater utilization of medical services than would otherwise occur in the absence of depression.

METHODS

Claims data for hypertensive patients enrolled in Maryland Medicaid (2005-2010) were used to estimate the change in annualized utilization following incident depression, compared to a matched cohort of hypertensive patients never diagnosed with depression. Multivariate regression was used to adjust for changes in antihypertensive medications, adherence and comorbidity that followed depression onset.

RESULTS

While medical utilization increased after incident depression, additional encounters tended to be for nonacute medical care and there was no significant increase in encounters specifically for cardiovascular or hypertension-related conditions.

DISCUSSION

The results contribute to the discussion on the relationship between depression and cardiovascular disease and will inform future studies that aim to look at longer term outcomes in patients with hypertension.

Safety and efficacy of skin patches containing loxoprofen sodium in diabetic patients with overt nephropathy

BACKGROUND

Because oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have adverse effects on kidney function, patients with kidney diseases are administered these drugs as transdermal patches. Little is known about the effects of NSAID patches on renal function. We therefore assessed the effects of topical loxoprofen sodium on kidney function in type 2 diabetic patients with overt nephropathy.

METHODS

Twenty patients with type 2 diabetes and overt proteinuria and with knee and/or low back pain were treated with skin patches containing 100 mg loxoprofen on the knee or back for 24 h per day for 5 consecutive days. The degree of pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Blood and 24-h urine samples were obtained at baseline and at the end of the study. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated from serum creatinine and cystatin C concentrations.

RESULTS

The 20 patients consisted of 11 males and 9 females, of mean age 61.6 ± 13.9 years. Loxoprofen-containing patches significantly reduced VAS pain without affecting blood pressure, GFR or urinary prostaglandin E2 concentration. Serum concentrations of loxoprofen and its active trans-OH metabolite did not correlate with GFR.

CONCLUSIONS

Loxoprofen-containing patches do not affect renal function in type 2 diabetic patients with overt nephropathy over a short-term period. Long-term studies are needed to clarify the safety of loxoprofen-containing patches in patients with chronic kidney diseases.

Comparative effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on blood pressure in patients with hypertension

Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may disrupt control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients and increase their risk of morbidity, mortality, and the costs of care. The objective of this study was to examine the association between incident use of NSAIDs and blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult hypertensive patients to determine the effects of their first prescription for NSAID on systolic blood pressure and antihypertensive drug intensification. Data were collected from an electronic medical record serving an academic general medicine practice in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Using propensity scores to minimize bias, we matched a cohort of 1,340 users of NSAIDs with 1,340 users of acetaminophen. Propensity score models included covariates likely to affect blood pressure or the use of NSAIDs. The study outcomes were the mean systolic blood pressure measurement after starting NSAIDs and changes in antihypertensive therapy.

Results

Compared to patients using acetaminophen, NSAID users had a 2 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.3). Ibuprofen was associated with a 3 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure compared to naproxen (95% CI, 0.5 to 4.6), and a 5 mmHg increase compared to celecoxib (95% CI, 0.4 to 10). The systolic blood pressure increase was 3 mmHg in a subgroup of patients concomitantly prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers and 6 mmHg among those prescribed a beta-adrenergic blocker. Blood pressure changes in patients prescribed diuretics or multiple antihypertensives were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Compared to acetaminophen, incident use of NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, is associated with a small increase in systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Effects in patients prescribed diuretics or multiple antihypertensives are negligible.

Celecoxib: a review of its use for symptomatic relief in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Celecoxib (Celebrex®) was the first cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) to be introduced into clinical practice. Coxibs were developed to provide anti-inflammatory/analgesic activity similar to that of nonselective NSAIDs, but without their upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, which is thought to result largely from COX-1 inhibition. Celecoxib is indicated in the EU for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in adults. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in these EU-approved indications, as well as overviewing its pharmacological properties. In randomized controlled trials, celecoxib, at the recommended dosages of 200 or 400 mg/day, was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as or more effective than paracetamol (acetaminophen) and as effective as nonselective NSAIDs and the coxibs etoricoxib and lumiracoxib for the symptomatic treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. Celecoxib was generally well tolerated, with mild to moderate upper GI complaints being the most common body system adverse events. In meta-analyses and large safety studies, the incidence of upper GI ulcer complications with recommended dosages of celecoxib was significantly lower than that with nonselective NSAIDs and similar to that with paracetamol and other coxibs. However, concomitant administration of celecoxib with low-dose cardioprotective aspirin often appeared to negate the GI-sparing advantages of celecoxib over NSAIDs. Although one polyp prevention trial noted a dose-related increase in cardiovascular risk with celecoxib 400 and 800 mg/day, other trials have not found any significant difference in cardiovascular risk between celecoxib and placebo or nonselective NSAIDs. Meta-analyses and database-derived analyses are inconsistent regarding cardiovascular risk. At recommended dosages, the risks of increased thrombotic cardiovascular events, or renovascular, hepatic or hypersensitivity reactions with celecoxib would appear to be small and similar to those with NSAIDs. Celecoxib would appear to be a useful option for therapy in patients at high risk for NSAID-induced GI toxicity, or in those responding suboptimally to or intolerant of NSAIDs. To minimize any risk, particularly the cardiovascular risk, celecoxib, like all coxibs and NSAIDs, should be used at the lowest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration after a careful evaluation of the GI, cardiovascular and renal risks of the individual patient.

Drug-induced hypertension: an unappreciated cause of secondary hypertension

A myriad variety of therapeutic agents or chemical substances can induce either a transient or persistent increase in blood pressure, or interfere with the blood pressure-lowering effects of antihypertensive drugs. Some agents cause either sodium retention or extracellular volume expansion, or activate directly or indirectly the sympathetic nervous system. Other substances act directly on arteriolar smooth muscle or do not have a defined mechanism of action. Some medications that usually lower blood pressure may paradoxically increase blood pressure, or an increase in pressure may be encountered after their discontinuation. In general, drug-induced pressure increases are small and transient: however, severe hypertension involving encephalopathy, stroke, and irreversible renal failure have been reported. The deleterious effect of therapeutic agents is more pronounced in patients with preexisting hypertension, in those with renal failure, and in the elderly. Careful evaluation of a patient's drug regimen may identify chemically induced hypertension and obviate unnecessary evaluation and facilitate antihypertensive therapy. Once chemical-induced hypertension has been identified, discontinuation of the causative agent is recommended, although hypertension can often be managed by specific therapy and dose adjustment if continued use of the offending agent is mandatory. The present review summarizes the therapeutic agents or chemical substances that elevate blood pressure and their mechanisms of action.

Performance of a semi-automated approach for risk estimation using a common data model for longitudinal healthcare databases

Different structures and coding schemes may limit rapid evaluation of a large pool of potential drug safety signals using multiple longitudinal healthcare databases. To overcome this restriction, a semi-automated approach utilising common data model (CDM) and robust pharmacoepidemiologic methods was developed; however, its performance needed to be evaluated. Twenty-three established drug-safety associations from publications were reproduced in a healthcare claims database and four of these were also repeated in electronic health records. Concordance and discrepancy of pairwise estimates were assessed between the results derived from the publication and results from this approach. For all 27 pairs, an observed agreement between the published results and the results from the semi-automated approach was greater than 85% and Kappa coefficient was 0.61, 95% CI: 0.19-1.00. Ln(IRR) differed by less than 50% for 13/27 pairs, and the IRR varied less than 2-fold for 19/27 pairs. Reproducibility based on the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.54. Most covariates (>90%) in the publications were available for inclusion in the models. Once the study populations and inclusion/exclusion criteria were obtained from the literature, the analysis was able to be completed in 2-8 h. The semi-automated methodology using a CDM produced consistent risk estimates compared to the published findings for most selected drug-outcome associations, regardless of original study designs, databases, medications and outcomes. Further assessment of this approach is useful to understand its roles, strengths and limitations in rapidly evaluating safety signals.

Antihypertensive effects of aspirin: what is the evidence?

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are known to increase blood pressure and blunt the effect of antihypertensive drugs. Surprisingly, it has been suggested recently that aspirin lowers blood pressure and could be used for preventing hypertension. This review summarizes published data on the effects of aspirin on blood pressure. Trials suggesting that aspirin administered at bedtime lowers blood pressure are uncontrolled, unmasked, and potentially biased. They also conflict with cohort studies showing an 18% increase in the risk of hypertension among aspirin users. Fortunately, short-term use of aspirin does not seem to interfere with antihypertensive drugs. Regardless of its effect on blood pressure, low-dose aspirin effectively prevents cardiovascular events in patients with and without hypertension, but its benefits should be carefully weighed against a potential increase in the risk of adverse effects such as gastric bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, as well as a small increase in the risk of hypertension.

Do the blood pressure effects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs influence cardiovascular morbidity and mortality?

There are many theories about why selective inhibitors of the second isoform of cyclooxygenase (COX-2) increase cardiovascular risk. Although torcetrapib raises blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, it has been difficult to prove such a link for COX-2 inhibitors in randomized clinical trials. This review shows a significant correlation in placebo-controlled trials between the five agents' elevations in blood pressures and their rate ratios for cardiovascular events. A larger body of evidence arises from randomized clinical trial comparisons of selective versus nonselective inhibitors of COX-2, but these results are heterogeneous for naproxen versus other traditional agents. The best current trial evidence comes from the centrally adjudicated placebo-controlled trials of celecoxib for colonic polyps: If the blood pressure did not rise at 1 or 3 years after randomization, cardiovascular risk did not significantly increase. Many more data will become available in 2013, after the only prospective clinical trial involving cardiovascular end points is completed.