Audit of selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in rural general practice

Aim: To identify the demographics and risk factors in a selected patient population prescribed non-selective and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX- 2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Method: A structured clinical self-audit form was distributed in January to March 2001 to 155 interested general practitioners (GPs) in rural Queensland. Results: Seventy one GPs participated in the audit and contributed 1417 patient records - 790 patients had received nonselective NSAIDs and 627 had received COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib or rofecoxib). Patients who received COX-2 inhibitors were significantly older, more likely to have clinically important concomitant illness, and more likely to be taking medication known to interact with NSAIDs. They were also twice as likely to have two or more risk factors for adverse effects. The most common reasons for switching from an NSAID to a COX-2 inhibitor were reported to be a previous side effect from an NSAID (primarily related to gastrointestinal effects) or the doctor's perception of the superior efficacy of COX-2 inhibitor therapy. Conclusions: This study has shown that COX-2 inhibitors were used in a distinctly different patient population compared to non-selective NSAIDs. There were significant variations in the demographics and number of risk factors - for example, cardiovascular and renal - between the two identified populations. These differences may be due to doctors selecting COX-2 inhibitors for patients at high risk of gastrointestinal complications. However, the prescribing pattern may also be partly due to misconceptions about the relative safety and efficacy of COX-2 inhibitor drugs.

Motivations and perceived influences on rural and urban general practitioners when prescribing conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or COX-2 inhibitors

Background and objective: Prescribers in rural and remote locations perceive that there are different influences on their prescribing compared with those experienced by urban prescribers. The aim of this study was to compare the motivations and perceived influences on general practitioners (GPs) when prescribing COX-2 inhibitors rather than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) between rural and urban-based GPs in Queensland, Australia. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to two geographically distinct groups of GPs, one urban (n = 67) and one rural (n = 67), investigating the reasons that the GP would prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor rather than a conventional NSAID or vice versa and also focusing on patients requesting a prescription for a COX-2 inhibitor. Results and discussion: A 51% response rate (n = 68) was achieved. The difference between the rural and the urban GPs was that the urban GPs were more likely to perceive that they were influenced to prescribe COX-2 inhibitors by their patients' knowledge of these new (at the time) drugs. GPs in both the rural and urban areas perceived the COX-2 selective inhibitors to be safer than conventional NSAIDs, and that there was little difference in terms of efficacy between the two drug classes. However, GPs from both of the study areas stated that conventional NSAIDs were preferred over COX-2 selective inhibitors, primarily due to their expense, if their patients were not at risk for developing a GI bleed. Conclusion: The motivations and perceived influences to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor in rural and in urban areas of Queensland, Australia were very similar. Almost all surveyed GPs in rural and urban areas had patients request a prescription, or enquire about the COX-2 inhibitors. Urban GPs were more likely to feel pressured to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor than their rural counterparts, agreeing with other research which found that patient pressure to prescribe appears to be greater in urban general practice.

Penetration of a topically applied nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug into local tissues and synovial fluid of dogs

Objective-To investigate penetration of a topically applied nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) into tissues and synovial fluid. Animals-5 Greyhounds. Procedure-Dogs were anesthetized and microdialysis probes placed in the dermis and gluteal muscle over each coxofemoral (hip) joint. Methylsalicylate (MeSA) was applied topically over the left hip joint. Dialysate and plasma (blood samples from the cephalic and femoral veins) were obtained during the subsequent 5 hours. Dogs were euthanatized, and tissue samples and synovial fluid were collected and analyzed for salicylic acid (SA) and MeSA by use of high-pressure liquid chromatography. Results-SA and MeSA concentrations increased rapidly (< 30 minutes after application) in dialysate obtained from treated dermis. Salicylic acid also appeared in plasma within 30 minutes and reached a plateau concentration after 2 hours, although combined drug concentrations (SA plus MeSA) in plasma obtained from femoral vein samples were twice those measured in plasma obtained from the cephalic vein (SA only). Treated muscle had a progressive decrease in NSAID concentration with increasing depth (SA and MeSA), but it was significantly higher than the concentration in untreated muscle. Substantial amounts of SA and MeSA were also measured in synovial fluid of treated joints. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Topically applied NSAIDs can penetrate deeply into tissues and synovial fluid. Local concentrations higher than circulating systemic concentrations are suggestive that direct diffusion and local blood redistribution are contributing to this effect. Systemic blood concentrations may be inadequate to describe regional kinetics of topically applied drugs.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.

Risk of serious NSAID-related gastrointestinal events during long-term exposure: a systematic review

Objective: Exposure to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated wit increased risk of serious gastrointestinal (GI) events compared with non-exposure. We investigated whether that risk is sustained over time. Data sources: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2002); MEDLINE, EMBASE, Derwent Drug File and Current Contents (1999-2002); manual searching of reviews (1999-2002). Study selection: From 479 search results reviewed and 221 articles retrieved, seven studies of patients exposed to prescription non-selective NSAIDs for more than 6 months and reporting time-dependent serious GI event rates were selected for quantitative data synthesis. These were stratified into two groups by study design. Data extraction: Incidence of GI events and number of patients at specific time points were extracted. Data synthesis: Meta-regression analyses were performed. Change in risk was evaluated by testing whether the slope of the regression line declined over time. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provided evaluable data from five NSAID arms (aspirin, naproxen, two ibuprofen arms, and diclofenac). When the RCT data were combined, a small significant decline in annualised risk was seen: -0.005% (95% Cl, -0.008% to -0.001%) per month. Sensitivity analyses were conducted because there was disparity within the RCT data. The pooled estimate from three cohort studies showed no significant decline in annualised risk over periods up to 2 years: -0.003% (95% Cl, -0.008% to 0.003%) per month. Conclusions: Small decreases in risk over time were observed; these were of negligible clinical importance. For patients who need long-term (> 6 months) treatment, precautionary measures should be considered to reduce the net probability of serious GI events over the anticipated treatment duration. The effect of intermittent versus regular daily therapy on long-term risk needs further investigation.

Paracetamol [acetaminophen]-induced gastrotoxicity: Revealed by induced hyperacidity in combination with acute or chronic inflammation

Paracetamol is regarded as a relatively safe drug in the gastro-duodenal region of humans but recent epidemiological investigations have suggested that at high doses there may be an increased risk of ulcers and bleeding. To investigate the possibility that inflammatory conditions and gastric acidity may play a role in potentiating development of gastric mucosal injury from paracetamol in rats (as noted previously with various non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) we studied the gastric irritant effects of paracetamol and some phenolic and non-phenolic analgesics and antipyretics in rats with adjuvant or collagen II induced arthritis or zymosan-induced paw inflammation and given 1.0 ml hydrochloric acid (HCl) 0.1 M and/or an i. p. injection of the cholinomimetic, acetyl-β-methyl choline chloride 5.0 mg/kg. Gastric lesions were determined 2 h after oral administration of 100 or 250 mg/kg paracetamol or at therapeutically effective doses of the phenolic or non-phenolic analgesics/antipyretics. The results showed that gastric mucosal injury occurred with all these agents when given to animals that received all treatments so indicating there is an adverse synergy of these three factors, namely: (i) intrinsic disease; (ii) hyperacidity; and (iii) vagal stimulation for rapidly promoting gastric damage, both in the fundic as well as the antral mucosa, for producing gastric damage by paracetamol, as well as the other agents. Removing one of these three predisposing factors effectively blunts/abolishes expression of this paracetamol-induced gastrotoxity in rats. These three factors, without paracetamol, did not cause significant acute gastropathy.

Postoperative analgesic requirements - total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy

Background: There is limited information available on the requirement for postoperative analgesic drugs in patients submitted to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) compared with patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy (VH). Aim: To compare the postoperative analgesic requirements in patients who underwent a TLH with patients who had a VH. Methods: Chart review of 53 patients who had TLH and 47 who had VH and were seen postoperatively by an acute pain management service in order to assess postoperative analgesic requirements. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) was part of the standard protocol for postoperative pain management. Analgesic requirement was recorded as the mean doses of morphine and number of days that patients used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oxycodone and tramadol. Results: The requirement for total morphine was approximately half the dose in patients who had a TLH (10.8 +/- 12.6 mg) compared with patients who had a VH (19.4 +/- 21.9 mg) (P 0.017). The length of use of NSAIDs was significantly reduced in patients who had undergone a TLH (2.0 +/- 0.95 days) as compared with patients who had a VH (2.85 +/- 1.1 days) (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patients submitted to TLH require less postoperative analgesic drugs when compared with patients who had VH. Prospective randomised trials are warranted to compare analgesic requirements between patients submitted to TLH and VH.