Quality of care for NSAID users: development of an assessment tool

Objective. Assessments of NSAID use based on authoritative guidelines typically overlook patients’ views and nuances of \ud medical history. Our objective was to develop an assessment tool that incorporates these aspects, and technical items, for quality of care assessments in NSAID users. \ud \ud Methods. Patients newly referred to a university hospital were interviewed by a nurse using an agreed template. A multidisciplinary group of rheumatologists, nurse specialists, primary care physicians and a pharmacist reviewed current guidance and systematic reviews on NSAID use, and a series of interview transcripts. The group agreed, by informal consensus, important determinants of effective and safe NSAID use. Technical aspects of medical care and items that reflected interpersonal care were included in an index for assessing quality of care for individual patients. Interview transcripts of 100 patients were scored by panel members and reliability of scores was tested by calculating weighted percentage agreement and the kappa statistic. \ud \ud Results. Our final index had five domains: medical risk factors; steps taken to reduce risk; knowledge of adverse effects; NSAID dose; and cost efficiency. Each item was scored 0, 1 or 2. Scores were summed, giving a maximum of 10 (low scores indicating low quality). Intra-rater agreement was >90%; kappa was 0.47–0.87 for individual domains and 0.59 for overall score. Inter-rater agreement for overall score was 95%; kappa was 0.25–0.78 for domains and 0.48 for overall score. Patients with especially low scores were identified using the mode of scores for five assessors; obvious clinical concerns were identified, supporting index face validity. \ud \ud Conclusions. A simple index to evaluate quality of care for NSAID users based on a patient interview is described. This may be used by one or more assessors to examine care standards and highlight deficiencies in relation to NSAID use in practice

The Misuse of Over-the-Counter NSAIDs

Over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are some of the most frequently used analgesics. The misuse of these medications occurs frequently and often without the patient’s realization. Inappropriate use can cause acute NSAID overdoses or contribute to serious adverse effects. Health care providers continue to play an important role in emphasizing the safe use of these medications. This article examines the impacts of NSAID misuse in our society and how health care professionals can help address these issues

Older patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S) tool

Background: Ageing of the population often leads to polypharmacy. Consequently, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) becomes more frequent. Systematic screening for PIP in older patients in primary care could yield a large improvement in health outcomes, possibly an important task for community pharmacists. In this article, we develop an explicit screening tool to detect relevant PIP that can be used in the typical community pharmacy practice, adapted to the European market. Methods: Eleven panellists participated in a two-round RAND/UCLA (Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles) process, including a round zero meeting, a literature review, a first written evaluation round, a second face-to-face evaluation round and, finally, a selection of those items that are applicable in the contemporary community pharmacy. Results: Eighteen published lists of PIP for older patients were retrieved from the literature, mentioning 398 different items. After the two-round RAND/UCLA process, 99 clinically relevant items were considered suitable to screen for in a community pharmacy practice. A panel of seven community pharmacists selected 83 items, feasible in the contemporary community pharmacy practice, defining the final GheOP3S tool. Conclusion: A novel explicit screening tool (GheOP3S) was developed to be used for PIP screening in the typical community pharmacy practice

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Ectodomain Shedding of the Amyloid Precursor Protein

Background: Epidemiological studies have suggested that long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain these findings including increased shedding of the soluble ectodomain of the amyloid precursor protein (sAPP), which functions as a neurotrophic and neuroprotective factor in vitro and in vivo. Objective: To clarify whether NSAIDs consistently stimulate sAPP secretion. Methods: 293-EBNA cells with stable overexpression of an APP-alkaline phosphatase fusion protein (APP-AP), SH-SY5Y and PC12 cells or primary telencephalic chicken neurons were treated with ibuprofen or indomethacin. APP shedding was then determined by measuring AP activity in conditioned media, Western blot analysis with antibodies against total sAPP or specific for sAPP-alpha, or in a pulse-chase paradigm. Results: AP activity in conditioned media was not increased after NSAID treatment of 293-EBNA cells whereas it was elevated by phorbol ester. Surprisingly, ibuprofen or indomethacin treatment of SH-SY5Y and PC12 cells expressing endogenous APP did not cause changes in sAPP or sAPP-alpha secretion or downregulation of cellular APP. These findings were further corroborated in primary chicken neuronal cultures. Conclusions: Using various experimental settings, we were unable to confirm sAPP or sAPP-alpha stimulation with the NSAIDs ibuprofen and indomethacin in transfected and nontransfected cells of neuronal and nonneuronal origin. Importantly, these findings seem to rule out chronic sAPP stimulation as an alternative mechanism of NSAID action in AD. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Base

Use of gastroprotective agents in recommended doses in hospitalized patients receiving NSAIDs: a drug utilization study

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, studies investigated to what extend recommendations for co-prescribing gastroprotective agents in prevention of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal complications are followed in clinical practice. However, only a few studies have also taken into consideration the recommended dose of gastroprotectives prescribed in NSAID-induced ulcer prophylaxis. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of concomitant use of gastroprotectives with NSAIDs in hospitalized patients, with emphasis on the recommended dose of gastroprotectives for ulcer prophylaxis. - - - - - METHOD: This observational, cross-sectional, drug utilization study included all adult patients receiving NSAIDs hospitalized in the Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb on the day of the study. Data on age, sex, comorbidities, indications for NSAID use, type/dose of NSAIDs and gastroprotectives, history of gastrointestinal events, active gastrointestinal symptoms and risk factors were evaluated. - - - - - MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Study outcomes were: (1) prevalence of prescription of gastroprotectives among NSAID-users at risk; (2) prevalence of prescription of gastroprotective in recommended dose; (3) association between risk factors and prescription of GPAs. - - - - - RESULTS: The rates of gastroprotectives prescription were significantly higher in NSAID-users with concomitant risk factors as compared to patients without risk factors [47/70 (67.1%) and 8/22 (36.4%), respectively; p = 0.01072]. However, gastroprotection in recommended ulcer-preventive dose was low in both groups [8/70 (11.4%) and 9/92 (9.8%), respectively]. The number of concomitant risk factors did not increase the odds of receiving anti-ulcer therapy (odds ratio 0.7279). Thirty-three percent of patients with concomitant risk factors were not prescribed gastroprotectives. Ibuprofen, NSAID with the lowest risk of inducing gastrointestinal complications, was prescribed in only two patients. - - - - - CONCLUSION: The results indicate high awareness among hospital physicians about possible NSAID-induced gastrointestinal complications, but insufficient knowledge about risk factors related to NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity, recommended dose of gastroprotectives in NSAID-induced ulcer prophylaxis and gastrointestinal toxicity of different types of NSAIDs

Is surgery more effective than non-surgical treatment for spinal stenosis and which non-surgical treatment is more effective? a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis can be treated both conservatively and with decompression surgery. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness of surgery vs conservative treatment, and conservative interventions for spinal stenosis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro and Cochrane databases, as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. STUDY SELECTION: The search included non-English studies, and all conservative interventions were included. STUDY APPRAISAL: The PEDro scale was used to assess quality, and levels of evidence were used to synthesise studies where possible. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, and 18 were high-quality studies. Decompression surgery was more effective than conservative care in four out of five studies, but only one of these was of high quality. In six high-quality studies, there was strong evidence that steroid epidural injections were not effective; in four out of five studies (two of which were of high quality), there was moderate evidence that calcitonin was not effective. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of all other conservative interventions. LIMITATIONS: Further research is needed to determine if decompression surgery is more effective than conservative care, and which conservative care is most effective. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: At present, there is no evidence that favours the effect of any conservative management for spinal stenosis. There is an urgent need to see if any conservative treatment can change pain and functional outcomes in spinal stenosis.</p

Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs That Elevate Cardiovascular Risk: An Examination of Sales and Essential Medicines Lists in Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries

PMCID: PMC3570554This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Risk of acute myocardial infarction with nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a meta-analysis

The use of cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The association between the risks of AMI with nonselective NSAIDs is less clear. We reviewed the published evidence and assessed the risk of AMI with nonselective NSAIDs. We performed a meta-analysis of all studies containing data from population databases that compared the risk of AMI in NSAID users with that in non-users or remote NSAID users. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed AMI. Fourteen studies met predefined criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Nonselective NSAIDs as a class was associated with increased AMI risk (relative AMI risk 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.31). Similar findings were found with diclofenac (relative AMI risk 1.38, 95% CI 1.22–1.57) and ibuprofen (relative AMI risk 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17). However, this effect was not observed with naproxen (relative AMI risk 0.99, 95% CI 0.88–1.11). In conclusion, based on current evidence, there is a general direction of effect, which suggests that at least some nonselective NSAIDs increase AMI risk. Analysis based on the limited data available for individual NSAIDs, including diclofenac and ibuprofen, supported this finding; however, this was not the case for naproxen. Nonselective NSAIDs are frequently prescribed, and so further investigation into the risk of AMI is warranted because the potential for harm can be substantial