AIMS: To characterize patients initiated on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pre and postrofecoxib withdrawal, by age, gender and concomitant cardiovascular (CV) therapy. METHODS: A national primary care prescription database was used to identify patients who initiated NSAID therapy pre and postrofecoxib withdrawal. Patients receiving CV therapy were identified in the same periods also. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals are presented. RESULTS: Female patients [OR = 1.15 (1.11, 1.19)], those over 65 years [OR = 2.76 (2.65, 2.86)] and those at CV risk [OR = 1.72 (1.67, 1.79)] were more likely to start on celecoxib (over a nonselective NSAID) than male patients, those under 65 years and those not at CV risk. Similar results were found for rofecoxib and nimesulide. Post-withdrawal analysis showed results comparable to the pre-withdrawal period. CONCLUSION: The results highlight a possible uncertainty experienced by prescribers of treatment alternatives available and a lack of unbiased information at this time for at-risk groups.
AIMS: To characterize patients initiated on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pre and postrofecoxib withdrawal, by age, gender and concomitant cardiovascular (CV) therapy. METHODS: A national primary care prescription database was used to identify patients who initiated NSAID therapy pre and postrofecoxib withdrawal. Patients receiving CV therapy were identified in the same periods also. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals are presented. RESULTS: Female patients [OR = 1.15 (1.11, 1.19)], those over 65 years [OR = 2.76 (2.65, 2.86)] and those at CV risk [OR = 1.72 (1.67, 1.79)] were more likely to start on celecoxib (over a nonselective NSAID) than male patients, those under 65 years and those not at CV risk. Similar results were found for rofecoxib and nimesulide. Post-withdrawal analysis showed results comparable to the pre-withdrawal period. CONCLUSION: The results highlight a possible uncertainty experienced by prescribers of treatment alternatives available and a lack of unbiased information at this time for at-risk groups.
Authors: Robert S Bresalier; Robert S Sandler; Hui Quan; James A Bolognese; Bettina Oxenius; Kevin Horgan; Christopher Lines; Robert Riddell; Dion Morton; Angel Lanas; Marvin A Konstam; John A Baron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Bombardier; L Laine; A Reicin; D Shapiro; R Burgos-Vargas; B Davis; R Day; M B Ferraz; C J Hawkey; M C Hochberg; T K Kvien; T J Schnitzer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A A Shah; B Thjodleifsson; F E Murray; E Kay; M Barry; G Sigthorsson; H Gudjonsson; E Oddsson; A B Price; D J Fitzgerald; I Bjarnason Journal: Gut Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Deborah Layton; Patrick C Souverein; Eibert R Heerdink; Saad A W Shakir; Antoine C G Egberts Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2008 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Lynne Parkinson; Xenia Doljagore; Richard Gibson; Evan Doran; Lisa Notley; Jenny Stewart Williams; Paul Kowal; Julie E Byles Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Aafke R Koffeman; Vera E Valkhoff; Geert W'T Jong; Margreet F Warlé-van Herwaarden; Patrick J E Bindels; Miriam C J M Sturkenboom; Pim A J Luijsterburg; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 2.581