Patricia McGettigan

Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: systematic review of population-based controlled observational studies

David Henry and colleagues reevaluate the evidence from observational studies on the cardiovascular risk associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Describing treatment effects to patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different presentations of equivalent information (framing) on treatment decisions faced by patients.DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. English language publications allocating participants to different frames were retrieved using electronic and bibliographic searches. Two reviewers examined each article for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality. Study characteristics were tabulated and where possible, relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to estimate intervention effects.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles, yielding 40 experimental studies, were included. Studies examined treatment (N=24), immunization (N=5), or health behavior scenarios (N=11). Overall, active treatments were preferred when outcomes were described in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reductions or number needed to treat. Surgery was preferred to other treatments when treatment efficacy was presented in a positive frame (survival) rather than a negative frame (mortality) (relative risk [RR]=1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64). Framing effects were less obvious for immunization and health behavior scenarios. Those with little interest in the behavior at baseline were influenced by framing, particularly when information was presented as gains. In studies judged to be of good methodological quality and/or examining actual decisions, the framing effect, although still evident, was less convincing compared to the results of all included studies.CONCLUSIONS: Framing effects varied with the type of scenario, responder characteristics, scenario manipulations, and study quality. When describing treatment effects to patients, expressing the information in more than one way may present a balanced view to patients and enable them to make informed decisions.

The Effects of Information Framing on the Practices of Physicians

OBJECTIVE: The presentation format of clinical trial results, or the “frame,” may influence perceptions about the worth of a treatment. The extent and consistency of that influence are unclear. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature on the effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.DESIGN: Relevant articles were retrieved using bibliographic and electronic searches. Information was extracted from each in relation to study design, frame type, parameter assessed, assessment scale, clinical setting, intervention, results, and factors modifying the frame effect.MAIN RESULTS: Twelve articles reported randomized trials investigating the effect of framing on doctors’ opinions or intended practices. Methodological shortcomings were numerous. Seven papers investigated the effect of presenting clinical trial results in terms of relative risk reduction, or absolute risk reductions or the number needing to be treated; gain/loss (positive/negative) terms were used in four papers; verbal/numeric terms in one. In simple clinical scenarios, results expressed in relative risk reduction or gain terms were viewed most positively by doctors. Factors that reduced the impact of framing included the risk of causing harm, preexisting prejudices about treatments, the type of decision, the therapeutic yield, clinical experience, and costs. No study investigated the effect of framing on actual clinical practice.CONCLUSIONS: While a framing effect may exist, particularly when results are presented in terms of proportional or absolute measures of gain or loss, it appears highly susceptible to modification, and even neutralization, by other factors that influence doctors’ decision making. Its effects on actual clinical practice are unknown.

Association of NSAID Use With Risk of Bleeding and Cardiovascular Events in Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy After Myocardial Infarction

IMPORTANCE Antithrombotic treatment is indicated for use in patients after myocardial infarction (MI); however, concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could pose safety concerns. OBJECTIVE To examine the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events among patients with prior MI taking antithrombotic drugs and for whom NSAID therapy was then prescribed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Using nationwide administrative registries in Denmark (2002-2011), we studied patients 30 years or older admitted with first-time MI and alive 30 days after discharge. Subsequent treatment with aspirin, clopidogrel, or oral anticoagulants and their combinations, as well as ongoing concomitant NSAID use, was determined. EXPOSURES Use of NSAIDs with ongoing antithrombotic treatment after first-time MI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Risk of bleeding (requiring hospitalization) or a composite cardiovascular outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal recurrent MI, and stroke) according to ongoing NSAID and antithrombotic therapy, calculated using adjusted time-dependent Cox regression models. RESULTS We included 61,971 patients (mean age, 67.7 [SD, 13.6] years; 63% men); of these, 34% filled at least 1 NSAID prescription. The number of deaths during a median follow-up of 3.5 years was 18,105 (29.2%). A total of 5288 bleeding events (8.5%) and 18,568 cardiovascular events (30.0%) occurred. The crude incidence rates of bleeding (events per 100 person-years) were 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.6) with concomitant NSAID treatment and 2.2 (95% CI, 2.1-2.3) without NSAID treatment, whereas the rates of cardiovascular events were 11.2 (95% CI, 10.5-11.9) and 8.3 (95% CI, 8.2-8.4). The multivariate-adjusted Cox regression analysis found increased risk of bleeding with NSAID treatment compared with no NSAID treatment (hazard ratio, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.81-2.26]), and the cardiovascular risk was also increased (hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.30-1.49]). An increased risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events was evident with concomitant use of NSAIDs, regardless of antithrombotic treatment, types of NSAIDs, or duration of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients receiving antithrombotic therapy after MI, the use of NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of bleeding and excess thrombotic events, even after short-term treatment. More research is needed to confirm these findings; however, physicians should exercise appropriate caution when prescribing NSAIDs for patients who have recently experienced MI.

Lipid peroxidation and antioxidant vitamins C and E in hypertensive patients

SummaryLipid peroxidation is a free radical process which is implicated in the formation of atherosclerosis. Vitamins C and E are important natural antioxidants which inhibit lipid peroxidation and a high intake of these vitamins, particularly vitamin E, is related to a reduced incidence of ischaemic heart disease. Hypertension is an independent risk factor for atherosclerosis and its relationship to antioxidant status is undetermined. In this study, we investigated free radical activity by measuring plasma malondialdehyde (MDA) using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), vitamin C status measured as plasma ascorbic acid and vitamin E status measured as plasma lipid standardized α-tocopherol and erythrocyte α-tocopherol. We compared 28 patients with essential hypertension to 31 healthy subjects. Results showed that in comparison with the healthy subjects, the hypertensive patients had significantly higher plasma MDA levels (0.95 α 0.28 vs 0.69 α 0.21 μmol/l, mean μ SD, p<0.001) and significantly lower levels of plasma ascorbic acid (34.83 μ 12.88 vs 51.76 μ 13.34 μmol/L, p<0.01). In addition, erythrocyte α-tocopherol concentration, which may reflect vitamin E protection in cell membranes, was significantly lower in hypertensive patients when compared with the normotensive controls (3.87 α0.53 vs 4.82 α 1.01 μmol/l, p<0.001), although plasma α-tocopherol levels were similar in the two groups (25.07 α 10.45 vs 23.96 α 6.07 μlmol/1). Our results suggest that hypertensive patients may have increased lipid peroxidation and reduced protection from vitamins C and E. This may contribute to the propensity in such patients to develop atherosclerosis.

Current Problems with Non-Specific COX Inhibitors

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used and effective treatments for pain and inflammation. They have a substantial toxicity profile with side effects mainly affecting the gastrointestinal tract, heart and kidneys. Although they comprise a chemically diverse group of drugs, NSAIDs are unified by a common mode of action the ability to inhibit the enzyme cyclo-oxygenase (COX). This also accounts for much of their toxicity. The enzyme exists in at least 2 isoforms. COX-1 generates prostaglandins with physiological functions, COX-2 is induced by inflammation and its physiologic functions are unclear at present. Conventional NSAIDs, like diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen, are non-selective COX inhibitors, blocking the production of both physiologic and inflammatory prostaglandins. In this chapter, we describe the main predictable gastrointestinal, cardiac and renal toxicities that can be explained by such blockade and review the supporting clinical and epidemiological evidence. In the gastrointestinal tract, the side effects associated with conventional NSAIDs are both local and systemic, and include ulceration, bleeding, perforation, and obstruction. The upper gastrointestinal tract is more commonly affected than the lower. The cardiac and renal side effects are most likely to occur in patients with existing heart or kidney disease, where prostaglandins play an essential role in maintaining the vasoconstrictor/dilator balance necessary for homeostasis. The patients at highest risk of toxicity are the elderly, those with a prior history of ulceration or bleeding, and those with a history of cardiac disease. Among such patients, the decision to prescribe NSAIDs requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and harms.

Growth in use of statins after trials is not targeted to most appropriate patients

To determine whether growth in the use of lipid‐lowering drugs after publication of studies in the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease is in the population in which benefit was established, particularly middle‐aged men. Methods: We performed a series of pharmacoepidemiologic surveys of community prescribing in Ireland over 4 years.

Selective COX-2 inhibitors, NSAIDs and congestive heart failure: differences between new and recurrent cases

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT Pharmaco-epidemiological studies have shown that in susceptible individuals, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors increase the risk of developing congestive heart failure (CHF). Recently published studies have found lower relative risk (RR) estimates than the initial studies published in 1998-2000. It is unclear whether the level of risk is elevated equally in first time and recurrent cases of CHF. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS This study found low-level, statistically nonsignificant elevations of risk with NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. There was a much higher level of recent use of NSAIDs/COX-2 inhibitors among first-time cases than among recurrent cases of CHF. * The dilution of the RR over successive studies, and the differences between first-time and recurrent cases noted here, suggest that prescribing doctors have heeded advice about the cardiovascular risks of NSAIDs and extended this practice to selective COX-2 inhibitors. AIMS To quantify the association between treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure (CHF); to determine if the risk varies between first and subsequent episodes of CHF. METHODS We conducted a case-control study of the relationship between recent use of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors and hospitalization with CHF. Cases (n = 530) were patients admitted to hospital with a primary diagnosis of CHF. Controls (n = 1054) were subjects without CHF who were admitted to the same hospitals as the cases. They were frequency matched to cases on the basis of age and sex. Structured interviews were used to obtain information on a number of study factors, including recent use of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated from exposure odds ratios, adjusted for a range of potential confounders. RESULTS Overall, NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors had been taken by 249 (23.6%) controls in the week before admission to hospital. Use of any NSAID/COX-2 inhibitor was recorded in 81/285 (28.4%) first-time cases compared with 38/245 (15.5%) in recurrent cases: difference 12.9% (95% confidence interval 5.9, 19.8) (P = 0.0004). The adjusted RRs for first hospital admission for CHF with different drug exposures were: NSAIDs 1.1 (0.67, 1.83), rofecoxib 1.29 (0.78, 2.13) and celecoxib 1.47 (0.85, 2.53). CONCLUSIONS We found weak and statistically nonsignificant associations between use of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors and hospitalization with CHF. This low RR is consistent with the results of recently published studies, but not with early studies that found an approximate doubling of risk with use of NSAIDs. The dilution of risk and the significantly lower levels of prescribing for recurrent than for first-time cases of heart failure suggest that prescribing doctors heeded messages that NSAIDs may precipitate CHF in vulnerable individuals, and that they have applied the same message to selective COX-2 inhibitors.

Clinical toxicology and drug regulation: A United Kingdom perspective

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) is the government body with responsibility for regulating new and existing medicines and medical devices in the United Kingdom. The Yellow Card scheme is a well-established pharmacovigilance system that collects voluntary reports of adverse effects associated with therapeutic drug use. In contrast, data concerning clinical toxicological effects are more poorly characterised. No comparable surveillance processes exist in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe that might allow systematic collection of clinical data and outcomes after drug overdose. Toxicological effects are normally ascertained from individual patient reports or small case series from a few specialised poisons units, so that these data are generally under-represented in post-marketing consideration of risks and benefits. Safety concerns may lead to withdrawal of the Marketing Authorisation or restricted prescribing conditions, which are conveyed to health care professionals by means of safety warnings. These may have a variable impact, and three selected examples are presented to illustrate the complex interaction between drug regulation and clinical toxicology. First, the effects of the withdrawal of rofecoxib in 2004 shows that regulatory responses may reduce the prescribing of drugs across a particular class, and this has resulted in fewer enquiries to Poisons Control Centres regarding all cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors. Secondly, data concerning the impact of safety warnings about antipsychotic medications illustrate that regulatory decisions may have a variable impact due to other factors that influence prescribing, including clinical guidelines, marketing pressures, and lack of alternative safe medications. Finally, the recent withdrawal of co-proxamol serves as an example of how clinical toxicology data can inform the drug regulation process and improve safety by minimising the risk of death associated with overdose. Greater reliance on clinical toxicology data could better inform the drug regulation process, perhaps through coordinated data collection systems that already exist in certain national poisons centres. Routine collection of high quality data concerning the effects of drug overdose could allow a more comprehensive review of risk and benefit by the regulatory authorities.

Anti-depressants in primary care: analysis of treatment discontinuations.

It is well known that adherence to anti‐depressant therapy is often poor, but the literature describes little in the way of systematic analyses to determine co‐relation between treatment discontinuation and possible contributing factors. We used a community dispensing database to review anti‐depressant prescribing patterns and continuity of therapy over a period of 10 months among a population of community‐based general practice patients. Some 109,228 anti‐depressant prescriptions were dispensed to 24,073 patients, of whom 37.5% collected a single prescription only. Tricyclic anti‐depressant prescribing declined significantly during the observation period (from 70% of prescriptions in month 1 to 66% in month 10) while that of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) increased (23% in month 1, 28% in month 10) ( p < 0.0001). Some 27% of those on tricyclics were prescribed <50% of the defined daily dose (DDD) compared with 2% of those on SSRIs. Among patients new to therapy who collected >1 prescription, adherence was poor and declined over time. The factors that influenced the extent to which patients failed to adhere to therapy included dosage level (% DDD) and age ( p <0.0001 for both), but not drug class or sex. The findings suggest that low dosage is a contributory factor in treatment discontinuation, and that contrary to common perception, SSRIs are not necessarily associated with better adherence to therapy than tricyclics. Copyright