Gastrointestinal safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients on warfarin

Piperine-loaded nanoparticles incorporated into hyaluronic acid/sodium alginate-based membranes for the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases

Piperine is an alkaloid mostly found in the fruits of several species of the Piper genus, and its anti-inflammatory potential is already known. However, its therapeutic applications still need to be better explored due to the low aqueous solubility of this active. To overcome this drawback, the objective of this work was to evaluate the efficiency of the nanoencapsulation of the compound as well as its incorporation into hyaluronic acid/alginate-based biomembranes. Polymeric nanoparticles composed of Eudragit S100 and Poloxamer 188 were obtained by the nanoprecipitation technique, obtaining spherical nanosized particles with an average diameter of 122.1 ± 2.0 nm, polydispersity index of 0.266, and encapsulation efficiency of 76.2 %. Hyaluronic acid/sodium alginate membranes were then prepared and characterized. Regarding permeation, a slow passage rate was observed until the initial 14 h, when an exponential increase in the recovered drug concentration began to occur. The in vivo assay showed a reduction in inflammation up to 43.6 %, and no cytotoxicity was observed. The results suggested the potential of the system developed for the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases.

Does coprescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral anticoagulants increase the risk of major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism?

AIMS

To examine the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism associated with prescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to adults receiving oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study in adults receiving OAC therapy using linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD) and hospital (Hospital Episodes Statistics) electronic health records. We used cause-specific Cox regression models with time-dependent NSAID treatment in a propensity score matched population to estimate the increased risk of GI bleeding, stroke, major bleeding and systemic embolism associated with NSAID use.

RESULTS

The matched cohort contained 3177 patients with OAC therapy alone and 3177 with at least 1 concomitant NSAID prescription. Compared with OAC therapy alone, concomitant prescription of NSAIDs with OACs was associated with increased risk of GI bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63 to 5.55), stroke (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.96) and major bleeding (HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.19). The association with systemic embolism did not reach statistical significance (HR 3.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 11.07). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in exclusion criteria and the choice of potential confounding variables.

CONCLUSION

When OACs are coprescribed with NSAIDs, the risk of adverse bleeding events increases and, simultaneously, the protective effect of OACs to prevent strokes reduces. There is a need for interventions that reduce hazardous prescribing of NSAIDs in people receiving OAC therapy.

Evaluating the Association of Genetic Polymorphism of Cytochrome p450 (CYP2C9*3) in Gastric Cancer Using Polymerase Chain Reaction-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)

Background and aim

As a distinguished system, the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme superfamily is involved in the biotransformation of several endogenous and exogenous substances including drugs, toxins, and carcinogens. Reports on the role of CYP enzyme in gastric cancer (GC) from the Eastern region of India are scarce. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in cytochrome P450 family 2 subfamily C member 9 (CYP2C9*3) among cases with gastric malignancy.

Material and methods

The current study is a cross-sectional observational study carried out among 113 GC cases attending the Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, India, and Srirama Chandra Bhanja Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, India. Two ml of venous blood was collected from the confirmed cases of GC. The samples were subjected to genomic DNA isolation followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP).

Results

The prevalence of both homozygous and heterozygous mutation in GC cases is 4% and 8%, respectively. The overall association of cytochrome P450 family 2 subfamily C member 9 (CYP2C9) mutation in GC cases is 12% whereas 88% were detected as wild/standard type. The mutation CYP2C9 SNP has been seen in Helicobacter pylori-infected cases and as well as those without H. pylori infection.

Conclusions

The CYP2C9*3 genetic polymorphism might play a significant role as a risk factor for the development of gastric malignancy irrespective of H. pylori infection, among the eastern Indian population.

Drug-related challenges following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty

We aimed to characterize the in-hospital analgesic use among total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA or TKA) patients, and to identify possible drug-related challenges. We identified 15 263 patients operated with a THA or TKA between 1 January 2012 and 30 April 2016. The prevalence of analgesic users and patients with potential clinically relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs), along with the prevalence of readmission among patients with vs. without a DDI, were calculated. A DDI was defined as the combination of (A) a diuretic, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker, and an non-steroidal anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID); (B) warfarin and an NSAID; and (C) a benzodiazepine or a benzodiazepine-related drug and an opioid. The prevalence of analgesics administered in THA and TKA patients was 99.3% and 99.1% for paracetamol and 93.8% and 98.8% for opioids, respectively. The prevalence of patients who received interaction A, B or C was 8.4%, 2.5% and 40.7%, respectively. Patients with vs. without a DDI had a higher prevalence of 30-day readmission. In conclusion, most THA and TKA patients were administered paracetamol or opioids. The prevalence of 30-day readmission was higher in patients with than in patients without a potential clinically relevant DDI.

Drug-drug Interactions with Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIM

The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstract (IPA) databases were searched from January 2004 to August 2019. We included studies describing drug-drug interactions between warfarin and other drugs. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. We synthesized pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), comparing warfarin plus another medication to warfarin alone. We assessed the risk of bias at the study level and evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Of 42,013 citations identified, a total of 72 studies reporting on 3,735,775 patients were considered eligible, including 11 randomized clinical trials and 61 observational studies. Increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding when added to warfarin therapy was observed for antiplatelet (AP) regimens (OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.56, 1.94), many antimicrobials (OR=1.63; 95% CI 1.45, 1.83), NSAIDs including COX-2 NSAIDs (OR=1.83; 95% CI 1.29, 2.59), SSRIs (OR=1.62; 95% CI 1.42, 1.85), mirtazapine (OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.30, 2.36), loop diuretics (OR=1.92; 95% CI 1.29, 2.86), and others. We found a protective effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) against warfarin-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings (OR=0.69; 95% CI 0.64, 0.73). No significant effect on thromboembolic events or mortality of any drug group used with warfarin was found, including single or dual AP regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found low to moderate certainty evidence supporting the interaction between warfarin and a small group of medications, which result in increased bleeding risk. PPIs are associated with reduced hospitalization for upper GI bleeding for patients taking warfarin. Further studies are required to better understand drug-drug interactions leading to thromboembolic outcomes or death.

Efficacy of Electronic Acupuncture Shoes for Chronic Low Back Pain: Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is a common problem and is associated with high costs, including those related to health care and indirect costs due to absence at work or reduced productivity. Previous studies have demonstrated that acupuncture or electroacupuncture can relieve low back pain. Electronic acupuncture shoes (EAS) are a novel device designed in this study. This device combines the properties of acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for clinical use.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EAS in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

In this prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study, the data of 83 patients who experienced chronic low back pain were analyzed. Patients came to our clinic for 20 visits and underwent assessment and treatment. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either EAS plus placebo nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (EAS group, n=42) or sham EAS plus NSAIDs (NSAID group, n=41). The visual analog scale (VAS) score and range of motion were assessed at baseline, before and after each EAS treatment, and 2 weeks after the last treatment. The time for achieving pain remission was recorded. Quality of life was assessed at the 2nd, 14th, and 20th visits.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of treatment, the treatment success rate in each visit in the EAS group was higher than that in the NSAID group, as revealed by the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, but significant differences were observed only during the 16th visit in the ITT analysis (EAS group: 31/37, 84% and NSAID group: 21/34, 62%; P=.04). The change in the VAS score from baseline in each visit in the EAS group was greater than that in the NSAID group, as revealed by the ITT and PP analyses, and significant differences were observed in the 5th visit and 9th visit in the ITT analysis (P=.048 and P=.048, respectively). Significant differences were observed in the left rotation in the 2nd visit and 4th visit (P=.049 and P=.03, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the VAS score before and after treatment in each visit and in the quality of life in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EAS might serve as a reliable alternative therapeutic tool for patients with chronic low back pain who are contraindicated for oral NSAIDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02468297 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02468297.

Postoperative Bleeding and Acute Kidney Injury in Esophageal Cancer Patients Receiving Ketorolac

BACKGROUND

As strategies promoting enhanced recovery protocols and opioid minimization techniques are increasingly prioritized, use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs continues to rise. Whether this prevalent use poses increased risk for bleeding or renal dysfunction in surgical populations after extensive dissection and fluid shifts is unclear.

METHODS

We reviewed records of patients undergoing esophagectomy for a diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma at a single institution from 2006 to 2018 for ketorolac administration during the postoperative hospital admission, as well as the occurrence of postoperative events, defined as the need for blood product transfusion and/or acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

We identified 1019 patients, 123 of whom experienced postoperative events (12%). Ketorolac was administered to 686 (67%). Furthermore, ketorolac use steadily increased over the study period; 36 of 72 patients received this medication in 2006 (49%), and 76 of 83 in 2018 (92%). Multivariable logistic regression failed to identify a relationship between ketorolac administration (assessed as a binary covariate) and postoperative events (P = .657). Additional examination for a dose-response relationship using the cumulative total dose from the time of surgery to discharge also did not demonstrate a relationship with postoperative events (P = .829). In an effort to evaluate a more homogeneous population, we performed a subgroup analysis using only patients treated with trimodality therapy, which showed similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac has become a staple of multimodal postesophagectomy analgesic regimens. Importantly, this medication does not pose risk for acute kidney injury or bleeding after surgery.

Risk of Bleeding with Exposure to Warfarin and Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Warfarin use can trigger the occurrence of bleeding independently or as a result of a drug-drug interaction when used in combination with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

OBJECTIVES

 This article examines the risk of bleeding in individuals exposed to concomitant warfarin and NSAID compared with those taking warfarin alone (Prospero Registry ID 145237).

METHODS

 PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. The primary outcome of interest was gastrointestinal bleeding and general bleeding. Summary effects were calculated to estimate average treatment effect using random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I ². Risk of bias was also assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

 A total of 651 studies were identified, of which 11 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for gastrointestinal bleeding when exposed to warfarin and an NSAID was 1.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55-2.53). The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was also significantly elevated with exposure to a COX-2 inhibitor and warfarin relative to warfarin alone (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.46-2.46). There was an increased risk of general bleeding with the combination of warfarin with NSAIDs (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18-2.12) or COX-2 inhibitors (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.86-2.78) compared with warfarin alone.

CONCLUSION

 Risk of bleeding is significantly increased among persons taking warfarin and a NSAID or COX-2 inhibitor together as compared with taking warfarin alone. It is important to caution patients about taking these medications in combination.

Urate-Lowering Therapy in Moderate to Severe Chronic Kidney Disease

CONTEXT

Hyperuricemia is an independent risk factor for progression of kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether lowering serum uric acid level (sUA) to below 6 mg/dL (target) improves mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) and whether CKD stage influences the benefit of lowering sUA to target.

DESIGN

Retrospective epidemiologic cohort study conducted over 8 years. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was required in the 6 months preceding the index date (defined as first occurrence of sUA < 7 mg/dL), and at least 1 sUA and eGFR were required during follow-up. Patients were urate-lowering therapy (ULT) naïve, aged 18 years or older, and had CKD Stages 2 to 4 at baseline. Health Plan enrollment with drug benefit was required. Exclusions included active cancer, dialysis, or other kidney disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A 30% decrease or 30% improvement in eGFR from baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 12,751 patients met inclusion criteria; 2690 patients received ULT during follow-up and 10,061 did not. Target sUA was achieved in 1118 patients (42%) receiving ULT. A 30% improvement in eGFR was likelier in patients who achieved the target (odds ratio [OR] = 1.78, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparison of CKD stages showed a 30% improvement in eGFR in CKD Stage 2 (OR = 2.26, p = 0.017) and Stage 3 (OR = 2.23, p < 0.001) but not Stage 4 (OR = 1.50, p = 0.081).

CONCLUSION

Patients who achieve an American College of Rheumatology target sUA below 6 mg/dL during ULT have higher rates of eGFR improvement, especially in CKD Stages 2 and 3.

Postoperative continuous adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty improves pain and functional recovery: A randomized controlled clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Investigate the use of a postoperative continuous adductor canal block (cACB) after epidural analgesia to decreases opioid consumption and improve visual analog scale (VAS) scores compared to a sham catheter.

DESIGN

Double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Inpatient setting in tertiary care teaching hospital with outpatient follow-up.

PATIENTS

One-hundred and sixty-five subjects (cACB n = 82 and sham catheter n = 83) with end-stage degenerative joint disease undergoing elective unilateral total knee arthroplasty.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were block randomized to receive a cACB or sham catheter. An epidural catheter was placed preoperatively and discontinued on postoperative day 1. Patients then received a cACB with bupivacaine or sham catheter which remained for the duration of the hospitalization.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was total opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included VAS scores, knee range of motion (ROM), ambulation distance, and WOMAC scores.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy patients completed the study (cACB n = 38 and sham catheter n = 32). Compared to sham catheter, in the first 20 h after placement of a cACB, patients used 22.5 mg less opioid (95% CI: -43.1 to -1.94 mg, P = 0.03). VAS score area under the curve decreased 7.8 mm (95% CI: -15.5 - -0.058 mm, P = 0.04) with a cACB. At 3-week follow-up, WOMAC scores were significantly improved with the cACB with a mean difference of 8.72 (95% CI: -17.3 to -0.11, P = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes on postoperative day 2. Paired outcomes at 6 weeks compared to baseline ROM, showed significant improvement in knee ROM with a cACB (mean difference 11.77°, 95% CI: 3.1-20.5°, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A postoperative cACB after total knee arthroplasty significantly reduces total opioid consumption and pain scores compared to sham catheter. Ambulatory ability was not affected and patients recovered function earlier. ClinicalTrials.govNCT02121392.

Perioperative blood loss and gastrointestinal tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in total hip arthroplasty (ETO-DIC study): a single-center, prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Non-selective NSAIDs can cause serious gastrointestinal side-effects. Selective COX-2 blockers are a reasonable alternative for pain treatment. They do not seem to affect platelet function and consequently cause a lower perioperative blood loss than non-selective NSAIDs. This study compared etoricoxib and diclofenac during a perioperative (9 days) period after THA to investigate total blood loss and gastrointestinal tolerability. The hypothesis was that etoricoxib is superior to diclofenac.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients (50 in each group) were included in this trial. Etoricoxib (90 mg) was administered once and diclofenac sodium (75 mg) twice daily for 9 days. Total blood loss during and after primary cementless THA was detected. The rate of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) was analyzed to detect gastrointestinal tolerability.

RESULTS

The mean total blood loss (calculated) was 1548 ± SD 468 ml in the etoricoxib (ETO) group and 1649 (SD 547) ml in the diclofenac (DIC) group. The mean duration of THA was 81 min (SD 29) in the DIC and 75 min (SD 30) in the ETO group. Hence, the mean calculated total blood loss was 101 ml higher in the DIC group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.334). Fifty-six patients (28 in each group) received a cell saver retransfusion, but only one patient (ETO group) needed an additional red blood cell transfusion. The hidden blood loss was 1067 ml (SD 603) in the DIC group and 999 ml (SD 378) in the ETO group. The gastrointestinal tolerability (number of adverse and serious adverse events) was not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant difference in perioperative blood loss after primary THA under etoricoxib (90 mg) compared to diclofenac (75 mg). Furthermore, no gastrointestinal superiority of etoricoxib could be detected during a short period of 9 days.

Effects of parecoxib on analgesia benefit and blood loss following open prostatectomy: a multicentre randomized trial

Background

This multi-centre, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to test the hypotheses that parecoxib improves patients’ postoperative analgesia without increasing surgical blood loss following radical open prostatectomy.

Methods

105 patients (64 ± 7 years old) were randomized to receive either parecoxib or placebo with concurrent morphine patient controlled analgesia. Cumulative opioid consumption (primary objective) and the overall benefit of analgesia score (OBAS), the modified brief pain inventory short form (m-BPI-sf), the opioid-related symptom distress scale (OR-SDS), and perioperative blood loss (secondary objectives) were assessed.

Results

In each group 48 patients received the study medication for 48 hours postoperatively. Parecoxib significantly reduced cumulative opioid consumption by 24% (43 ± 24.1 mg versus 57 ± 28 mg, mean ± SD, p=0.02), translating into improved benefit of analgesia (OBAS: 2(0/4) versus 3(1/5.25), p=0.01), pain severity (m-BPI-sf: 1(1/2) versus 2(2/3), p < 0.01) and pain interference (m-BPI-sf: 1(0/1) versus 1(1/3), p=0.001), as well as reduced opioid-related side effects (OR-SDS score: 0.3(0.075/0.51) versus 0.4(0.2/0.83), p=0.03). Blood loss was significantly higher at 24 hours following surgery in the parecoxib group (4.3 g⋅dL⁻¹ (3.6/4.9) versus (3.2 g⋅dL⁻¹ (2.4/4.95), p=0.02).

Conclusions

Following major abdominal surgery, parecoxib significantly improves patients’ perceived analgesia. Parecoxib may however increase perioperative blood loss. Further trials are needed to evaluate the effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on blood loss.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00346268

Co-Prescribing of Potentially Interacting Drugs during Warfarin Therapy - A Population-Based Register Study

We analysed the occurrence of co-prescribing of potentially interacting drugs during warfarin therapy in the community-dwelling population of Finland. We identified drugs having interaction potential with warfarin using the Swedish Finnish INteraction X-referencing drug-drug interaction database (SFINX) and obtained data on drug purchases from the nationwide Prescription Register. We defined warfarin users as persons purchasing warfarin in 2010 (n = 148,536) and followed them from their first prescription in 2010 until the end of the calendar year. Co-prescribing was defined as at least 1-day overlap between warfarin and interacting drug episodes. In addition, we identified persons who initiated warfarin therapy between 1 January 2007 and 30 September 2010 (n = 110,299) and followed these incident users for a 3-month period since warfarin initiation. Overall, 74.4% of warfarin users were co-prescribed interacting drugs. Co-prescribing covered 46.4% of the total person-years of warfarin exposure. Interacting drugs that should be avoided with warfarin were co-prescribed for 13.4% of warfarin users. The majority of the co-prescriptions were for drugs that are not contraindicated during warfarin therapy but require special consideration. Among incident users, 57.1% purchased potentially interacting drugs during the 3-month period after initiation, while 9.0% purchased interacting drugs that should be avoided with warfarin. To conclude, the occurrence of co-prescribing of potentially interacting drugs was high during warfarin therapy. Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring of warfarin therapy and the need for further studies on the clinical consequences of co-prescribing of interacting drugs with warfarin.

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the older adult

PURPOSE

Annually, approximately 90 million prescriptions are filled for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with the number prescribed for older adults approximately three times higher than for younger adults. This article examines the benefits and risk of NSAID use in older adults.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic data collection of research studies, evidence-based reviews, consensus statements, and guidelines related to the purpose of this article were analyzed if published between 2000 and 2013 in English from Ovid, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases.

CONCLUSIONS

While NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain and inflammation in older adults, strong consideration must be given to the potential adverse effects. A lack of consistency in the guidelines regarding NSAID use poses further challenges for clinicians in the selection of the best pharmacological approach. When prescribing NSAIDs, adverse events, polypharmacy, comorbidities, and treatment guidelines must be considered. NSAIDs are an appropriate option for pain management in select older adults, often after a trial of acetaminophen and if benefits outweigh risks. Alternative pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies may be more appropriate in many older adults.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The challenge for clinicians prescribing NSAIDs in the treatment of pain in older adults is to utilize safe, individualized, and evidenced-based pain management regimens.

Clinical trial data in support of changing guidelines in osteoarthritis treatment

Goals for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) emphasize pain relief, reduction of inflammation, and improvement in functioning. Among pharmacological pain management interventions, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently recommended as the most effective treatment option for OA. However, the use of traditional oral NSAIDs is associated with risk of serious adverse events involving the gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal systems. Topical NSAIDs are an alternative with well-established tolerability and efficacy in the treatment of OA of the knee or hand. While the management of OA pain is evolving toward the more widespread use of topical NSAIDs, some OA management guidelines have yet to incorporate these agents in their recommendations. This review examines the efficacy and tolerability of topical NSAIDs, their current placement in OA management guidelines, and their potential role in enabling pain specialists to provide individualized care for their patients with OA.

Safe prescription recommendations for non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: consensus document ellaborated by nominated experts of three scientific associations (SER-SEC-AEG)

This article outlines key recommendations for the appropriate prescription of non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to patients with different musculoskeletal problems. These recommendations are based on current scientific evidence, and takes into consideration gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety issues. The recommendations have been agreed on by experts from three scientific societies (Spanish Society of Rheumatology [SER], Spanish Association of Gastroenterology [AEG] and Spanish Society of Cardiology [SEC]), following a two-round Delphi methodology. Areas that have been taken into account encompass: efficiency, cardiovascular risk, gastrointestinal risk, liver risk, renal risk, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, post-operative pain, and prevention strategies. We propose a patient management algorithm that summarizes the main aspects of the recommendations.

Prevalence of gastroprotective agent (GPA) use in adults with arthritis in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and concurrent gastroprotective agent (GPA) use in the US is not known. As such, the prevalence of GPA use among arthritis patients taking NSAIDs was examined.

METHODS

Men and women aged ≥ 40 with self-reported arthritis and members of a web-based community panel were invited via e-mail to participate in a web survey. Interested panelists consented and completed the survey. Participants using NSAIDs in the last 30 days were eligible. Questions regarding NSAID and GPA use were asked, likewise adherence to GPA (Morisky scale), comorbid conditions, gastrointestinal (GI) history, and other risk factors. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were performed to assess associations with GPA use and adherence.

RESULTS

Invitations were sent to 7605 adults; 4108 (54%) responded; 2208 completed. Final sample was 1525 (76%) with osteoarthritis (OA), 354 (18%) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and 121 (6%) with both OA and RA. Mean age was 62.0; 64% were female; 83% white; 25% worked full-time, and 39% were retired. Mean duration with arthritis was 13.0 years; 47% and 19% experienced arthritis symptoms 'daily' and 'almost always', respectively. Nearly 43% reported using a GPA and 39% of daily NSAID users reported taking a GPA. Fifty-eight participants (2.9%) were classified as low GI risk, 342 (17.1%) were moderate risk, and 1600 (80.0%) were high risk. Variables significantly associated with GPA use included older age; male gender; being white (vs. Hispanic); taking an NSAID at least daily; taking fewer NSAIDs; taking a Cox-2 inhibitor or prescription NSAID; history of GI conditions; prescription antiplatelet use; and having GI symptoms. Similar variables were associated with GPA adherence.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of adult men and women in the US taking a daily NSAID used GPAs and only 37% of high-risk participants were taking GPAs.

A review of pharmacotherapy for chronic low back pain with considerations for sports medicine

Up to 30% of athletes experience low back pain (LBP) depending on sport type, sex, training intensity and frequency, and technique. United States clinical guidelines define back pain as chronic if it persists for ≥ 12 weeks, and subacute if it persists 4 to < 12 weeks. Certain sports injuries are likely to lead to chronic pain. Persistent or chronic symptoms are frequently associated with degenerative lumbar disc disease or spondylolytic stress lesions. Exercise therapy is widely used and is the most conservative form of treatment for chronic LBP (cLBP). Pharmacotherapies for cLBP include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids. Acetaminophen is a well-tolerated first-line pharmacotherapy, but high-dose, long-term use is associated with hepatic toxicity. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be an effective second-line option if acetaminophen proves inadequate but they have well-known risks of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and other systemic adverse effects that increase with patient age, dose amount, and duration of use. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, has demonstrated modest efficacy and is associated with systematic adverse events, including serotonin syndrome, which can be dose related or result from interaction with other analgesics. Opioids may be an effective choice for moderate to severe pain but also have significant risks of adverse events and carry a substantial risk of addiction and abuse. Because the course of cLBP may be protracted, patients may require treatment over years or decades, and it is critical that the risk/benefit profiles of pharmacotherapies are closely evaluated to ensure that short- and long-term treatments are optimized for each patient. This article reviews the clinical evidence and the guideline recommendations for pharmacotherapy of cLBP.

Duloxetine in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is among the most frequent painful complaints that healthcare providers address. The bulk of these complaints are chronic low back pain and chronic osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis in the United States. It is a chronic degenerative disorder characterized by a loss of cartilage, and occurs most often in older persons. The management of osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain may involve both nonpharmacologic (eg, weight loss, resistive and aerobic exercise, patient education, cognitive behavioral therapy) and pharmacologic approaches. Older adults with severe osteoarthritis pain are more likely to take analgesics than those with less severe pain. The pharmacologic approaches to painful osteoarthritis remain controversial, but may include topical as well as oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and opioids. The role of duloxetine for musculoskeletal conditions is still evolving.

Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

High-quality anticoagulation management is required to keep these narrow therapeutic index medications as effective and safe as possible. This article focuses on the common important management questions for which, at a minimum, low-quality published evidence is available to guide best practices.

METHODS

The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

Most practical clinical questions regarding the management of anticoagulation, both oral and parenteral, have not been adequately addressed by randomized trials. We found sufficient evidence for summaries of recommendations for 23 questions, of which only two are strong rather than weak recommendations. Strong recommendations include targeting an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 for patients on vitamin K antagonist therapy (Grade 1B) and not routinely using pharmacogenetic testing for guiding doses of vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1B). Weak recommendations deal with such issues as loading doses, initiation overlap, monitoring frequency, vitamin K supplementation, patient self-management, weight and renal function adjustment of doses, dosing decision support, drug interactions to avoid, and prevention and management of bleeding complications. We also address anticoagulation management services and intensive patient education.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer guidance for many common anticoagulation-related management problems. Most anticoagulation management questions have not been adequately studied.

Pain Management in the Elderly: An FDA Safe Use Initiative Expert Panel's View on Preventable Harm Associated with NSAID Therapy

Optimization of current pain management strategies is necessary in order to reduce medication risks. Promoting patient and healthcare provider education on pain and pain medications is an essential step in reducing inadequate prescribing behaviors and adverse events. In an effort to raise awareness on medication safety, the FDA has launched the Safe Use Initiative program. The program seeks to identify areas with the greatest amount of preventable harm and help promote new methods and practices to reduce medication risks. Since the establishment of the program, FDA's Safe Use initiative staff convened a panel of key opinion leaders throughout the medical community to address pain management in older adults (≥65 years of age). The aim of the expert panel was to focus on areas where significant risk occurs and where potential interventions will be feasible, implementable, and lead to substantial impact. The panel suggested one focus could be the use of NSAIDs for pain management in the elderly.

A review of opioids for in-hospital pain management

In the postoperative pain setting, the use of opioid analgesics remains essential in achieving effective analgesia and in avoiding the deleterious sequelae of uncontrolled pain that can worsen patient outcomes. However, postoperative pain remains undertreated in many patients. Choosing the most appropriate use of opioids in the postoperative setting, especially for patients undergoing ongoing opioid treatment for chronic pain, can pose daunting challenges for many clinicians. In this article, we examine the pitfalls that may be encountered when implementing postoperative pain management strategies with opioid analgesics, especially in patients receiving chronic opioid therapy prior to admission, and the critical steps for appropriate and effective analgesia in this setting.

Analysis of potential interactions between warfarin and prescriptions in Estonian outpatients aged 50 years or more

In Estonia, warfarin is widely prescribed by general practitioners to prevent and treat thromboembolic diseases. To date, there has been no systematic analysis of the potential risk of warfarin interactions with other drugs in the outpatient population.

Objective

The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence of potential interactions in prescription schemes in Estonia in a cohort of outpatients receiving warfarin treatment.

Methods

The retrospective study population included 203,646 outpatients aged 50 years or older of whom 7,175 received warfarin therapy. Patients who had used at least one prescription drug for a minimum period of 7 days concomitantly with warfarin were analyzed. Potential drug interactions were analyzed using Epocrates online, Stockley's Drug Interactions and domestic drug interaction databases.

Results

The average number of drugs used concomitantly with warfarin was 4.8 (SD=1.9) (males: 4.7 SD=2.0, females: 4.9 SD=2.0). No potential interactions in treatment regimens were found in 38% of patients, one potential interaction was observed in 29% and two or more potential interactions were observed in 33% of patients. The mean number of all potential interactions was 1.2 per patient and about the same in men and women. Potential interactions were associated with the number of drugs. Warfarin-related interactions were detected in 57% of patients, and the number of interactions related to warfarin per patient varied from 1 to 5. Most frequent were use of warfarin with NSAIDs (14%), followed by simvastatin (9%) and amiodarone (7%).

Conclusions

This study shows that 57% of outpatients in Estonia receiving warfarin have drugs potentially interacting with warfarin in their treatment schemes. Most interactions (14%) with warfarin are associated with the prescription of NSAIDs.

Potentially harmful drug-drug interactions in the elderly: a review

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are vulnerable to drug interactions because of age-related physiologic changes, an increased risk for disease associated with aging, and the consequent increase in medication use.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this narrative review was to describe findings from rigorously designed observational cohort and case-control studies that have assessed specific drug interactions in elderly patients.

METHODS

The PubMed and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases were searched for studies published in English over the past 10 years (December 2000-December 2010) using relevant Medical Subject Headings terms (aged; aged, 80 and over; and drug interactions) and search terms (drug interaction and elderly). Search strategies were saved and repeated through September 2011 to ensure that the most recent relevant published articles were identified. Additional articles were found using a search of review articles and reference lists of the identified studies. Studies were included if they were observational cohort or case-control studies that reported specific adverse drug interactions, included patients aged ≥65 years, and evaluated clinically meaningful end points. Studies were excluded if they used less rigorous observational designs, assessed pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, evaluated drug-nutrient or drug-disease interactions or interactions of drug combinations used for therapeutic benefit (eg, dual antiplatelet therapy), or had inconclusive evidence.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies reported an elevated risk for hospitalization in older adults associated with adverse drug interactions. The drug interactions included: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and potassium-sparing diuretics, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, benzodiazepines or zolpidem and interacting medications, calcium channel blockers and macrolide antibiotics, digoxin and macrolide antibiotics, lithium and loop diuretics or ACE inhibitors, phenytoin and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, sulfonylureas and antimicrobial agents, theophylline and ciprofloxacin, and warfarin and antimicrobial agents or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. One study reported the risk for breast cancer-related death as a function of paroxetine exposure among women treated with tamoxifen.

CONCLUSIONS

Several population-based studies have reported significant harm associated drug interactions in elderly patients. Increased awareness and interventions aimed at reducing exposure and minimizing the risks associated with potentially harmful drug combinations are needed.

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for management of osteoarthritis in long-term care patients

Osteoarthritis is common in patients ≥65 years of age. Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often prescribed for osteoarthritis pain, they pose age-related cardiovascular, renal, and gastrointestinal risks. Two topical NSAIDs, diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) and diclofenac sodium 1.5% in 45.5% dimethylsulfoxide solution (D-DMSO), are approved in the US for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. Topical NSAIDs have shown efficacy and safety in knee (DSG, D-DMSO) and hand (DSG) osteoarthritis. Analyses of data from randomized controlled trials of DSG in hand and knee osteoarthritis demonstrate significant improvement of pain and function in both younger patients (<65 years) and older patients (≥65 years) and suggest good safety and tolerability. However, long-term safety data in older patients are limited. Topical NSAIDs can ease medication administration and help address barriers to pain management in older patients, such as taking multiple medications and inability to swallow, and are a valuable option for long-term care providers.

The NSAID dilemma: managing osteoarthritis in high-risk patients

For decades, evidence-based data and reported experience have warned that the common chronic oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy for osteoarthritis (OA) in elderly patients is ultimately dangerous. Elderly patients with OA are at heightened risk for developing serious gastrointestional and cardiovascular adverse events, including gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prescribing NSAIDs, especially in an elderly population, continues to be discouraged because of these significant risks. A dilemma exists for individuals who need the established efficacy associated with oral NSAIDs but who are at increased risk for serious adverse events associated with these agents. The goal of this clinical review was to evaluate the risks versus benefits of current options in the treatment of OA. This review found that topical NSAIDs seem to be the safest choice among all options to mitigate gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks and should be considered prior to the initiation of oral nonselective or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAIDs for individuals presenting with a localized expression of OA. Further research is needed to evaluate and compare these therapies in treating both pain and inflammation effectively while mitigating safety risks in high-risk populations.

Drug interactions with phenprocoumon and the risk of serious haemorrhage: a nested case-control study in a large population-based German database

PURPOSE

Phenprocoumon is the most frequently used vitamin K antagonist in Germany. The aim of this study was to estimate the risk of serious bleeding as a result of the use of drugs with potential interaction with phenprocoumon.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of 246,220 phenprocoumon users in the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database. Cases were patients hospitalised for haemorrhage of different kinds. Ten controls were matched to each case by health insurance, birth year and sex using incidence density sampling. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the risk of serious bleeding associated with combined use of phenprocoumon and potentially interacting drugs versus phenprocoumon alone were estimated using conditional logistic regression analysis. Our analyses considered multiple risk factors, such as bleeding history, other comorbidities or co-medication.

RESULTS

Our study included 2,553 cases and 25,348 matched controls. An increased risk of bleeding was observed for the combined use of phenprocoumon and clopidogrel vs phenprocoumon use alone (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.41-2.36). Antibiotic drugs associated with an increased risk of haemorrhage in the population of phenprocoumon users included the group of quinolones with ORs ranging from 2.74 (95% CI: 1.80-4.18) for ciprofloxacin to 4.40 (95% CI: 2.45-7.89) for levofloxacin, amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid (OR: 2.99, 95% CI: 1.39-6.42) and cotrimoxazole (OR 3.57, 95% CI: 2.36-5.40). Among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), ketoprofen and naproxen were associated with the highest risks.

CONCLUSION

Significantly elevated risks of major bleeding were mainly observed for drugs with known pharmacodynamic interaction with phenprocoumon, and less for drugs with possible pharmacokinetic interaction.

Opioid therapy for osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA) of any joint are highly prevalent, occurring in > 50% of US adults aged ≥ 60 years. Opioids are prescribed more frequently for CLBP and OA than for any other noncancer pain, and the judicious use of opioids is recommended by treatment guidelines for the management of CLBP and OA pain.

OBJECTIVE

To review the appropriate role of opioid analgesics in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe pain due to CLBP or OA and provide recommendations for best practices when prescribing opioids.

METHODS

Articles were identified through a search of PubMed. Additional references were identified for inclusion from the reference lists of articles identified via the literature search, treatment guidelines, and Cochrane Reviews.

RESULTS

The available data suggest that opioid therapy represents a valuable treatment option in patients who do not respond to other analgesics and in whom the potential benefits of treatment outweigh the potential risks. Prescribing physicians need to perform vigilant patient screening and monitoring for signs of abuse, intervene promptly to manage or prevent adverse events and drug interactions, tailor opioid therapy to individual patients' comorbidities, and know how to switch or rotate opioids to find the best treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribers need to understand the place of opioid therapy in a multimodal treatment program that includes patient rehabilitation to reduce pain and improve function. The analgesic benefits of opioids must be balanced against concerns about addiction and abuse, adverse events, and their potential impact on other aspects of treatment.