Anemia is a potential nontraditional risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study evaluated whether anemia is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in people with diabetes and whether the risk is modified by the presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Persons with diabetes from four community-based studies were pooled: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities, Cardiovascular Health Study, Framingham Heart Study, and Framingham Offspring Study. Anemia was defined as a hematocrit <36% in women and <39% in men. CKD was defined as an estimated GFR of 15 to 60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Study outcomes included a composite of myocardial infarction (MI)/fatal coronary heart disease (CHD)/stroke/death and each outcome separately. Cox regression analysis was used to study the effect of anemia on the risk for outcomes after adjustment for potential confounders. The study population included 3015 individuals: 30.4% were black, 51.6% were women, 8.1% had anemia, and 13.8% had CKD. Median follow-up was 8.6 yr. There were 1215 composite events, 600 MI/fatal CHD outcomes, 300 strokes, and 857 deaths. In a model with a CKD-anemia interaction term, anemia was associated with the following hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) in patients with CKD: 1.70 (1.24 to 2.34) for the composite outcome, 1.64 (1.03 to 2.61) for MI/fatal CHD, 1.81 (0.99 to 3.29) for stroke, and 1.88 (1.33 to 2.66) for all-cause mortality. Anemia was not a risk factor for any outcome in those without CKD (P > 0.2 for all outcomes). In persons with diabetes, anemia is primarily a risk factor for adverse outcomes in those who also have CKD.

There is an association between hypersensitivity after the receipt of sulfonamide antibiotics and a subsequent allergic reaction after the receipt of a sulfonamide nonantibiotic, but this association appears to be due to a predisposition to allergic reactions rather than to cross-reactivity with sulfonamide-based drugs.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough osteoarthritis (OA) often affects older persons, it has a profound effect on individuals actively employed. Despite reports of reduced productivity among workers with OA, data are limited regarding the impact of OA among workers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of self-rated OA severity on quality of life, healthcare resource utilization, productivity and costs in an employed population relative to employed individuals without OA.MethodsThis cross-sectional analysis used data derived from the 2009 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS). Multivariable analyses characterized outcomes and costs (direct medical costs and indirect) among workers (full-time, part-time, or self-employed) ≥ 20 years of age who were diagnosed with OA and who self-rated their OA severity as mild, moderate, or severe relative to workers without OA. Evaluated outcomes included productivity, assessed using the Work Productivity and Impairment (WPAI) scale; health-related quality of life, using the SF-12v2 Health Survey; and healthcare resource utilization.Results4,876 workers reported being diagnosed with OA (45.0% mild, 45.9% moderate, and 9.1% severe); 34,896 workers comprised the non-OA comparator cohort. There was a greater proportion of females in the OA cohort (55.5% vs 45.6%; P < 0.0001) and more individuals in the 40-64 year and ≥ 65 year age ranges (P < 0.0001). As OA severity increased, workers reported more frequent pain, poorer quality of life, greater use of specific healthcare resources (hospitalizations) and reduced productivity. All outcomes indicated a significantly greater burden among workers with OA relative to those without OA (P < 0.0001). Estimated total annual costs per worker were $9,801 for mild OA, $14,761 for moderate OA, $22,111 for severe OA compared with $7,901 for workers without OA (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsWorkers with OA were characterized by significant disease and economic burdens relative to workers without OA that substantially increased with greater self-rated OA severity. Greater levels of OA severity were associated with reductions in quality of life and productivity, and increases in healthcare resource utilization and costs.

No abstract

Objective. Acetaminophen is recommended as initial therapy for patients with arthritis, particularly those at increased risk of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. However, higher doses of acetaminophen inhibit prostaglandin synthesis and have been associated with GI events. This study was undertaken to compare the observed and adjusted rates of GI events (hospitalizations, ulcers, dyspepsia, GI prophylaxis) occurring with higher versus lower doses of acetaminophen.Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of subjects ages >65 years who received a prescription for acetaminophen or NSAID between 1994 and 1996. Pharmaceutical and medical records were reviewed for 1 year of historical data prior to the index prescription of acetaminophen or non-aspirin NSAID. Risk factors for GI events were identified based on the historical data. To further control for bias, patients were categorized by propensity score (the likelihood of receiving acetaminophen, given defined risk factor values). Records were then reviewed for the duration of the index prescription or 30 days, whichever was less, to generate data on the occurrence of GI events. Determinants of acetaminophen utilization were identified using logistic regression, and rates of GI events for each therapy were examined using Poisson regression analyses, controlling for duration of exposure, individual risk factors, and propensity scores.Results. . Unadjusted rates of GI hospitalization, ulcer, and dyspepsia were higher for patients in the acetaminophen cohort than for those in the NSAID cohort. The occurrence of GI events in acetaminophen-treated patients was dose dependent, with rate ratios (compared with high-dose NSAIDs and adjusted for risk susceptibility) ranging from 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.5-0.7) for <650 mg/day to 1.0 (0.9-1.1) for >3,250 mg/day.Conclusion. In this cohort, acetaminophen utilization is more common in patients at higher risk of GI events. After adjustment for risk susceptibility, patients receiving higher doses of acetaminophen have higher rates of GI events compared with those receiving lower doses.Practice guidelines endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommend acetaminophen (up to 4 gm/day) as initial therapy for the treatment of arthritis (1,2), to avoid the gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity attributable to conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (3-9). Acetaminophen can also be used for patients with a history of NSAID intolerance or GI disease. (1,2,10) Recognized risk factors for GI events include age Ͼ65 years, previous GI disease, concomitant use of corticosteroids or anticoagulants, and comorbidities (3,8,9,11,12).However, several studies have associated acetaminophen with increased dyspepsia (13-15), and at Supported by Pfizer Inc.

Although efficacious medications are available to treat hypertension and dyslipidemia, treatment adherence is often poor. This retrospective study evaluated adherence in patients newly initiating antihypertensive (AH) and lipid-lowering (LL) therapies simultaneously versus within 180 days of one another. Data were analyzed for US managed care plan enrollees initiating AH before LL (cohort 1;n = 7099), LL before AH (cohort 2; n = 3229), or AH/LL simultaneously (cohort 3; n = 5072). A multivariate model evaluated potential predictors of adherence (medication possession ratio >or= 0.80 over a bimonthly period). Percentages of patients adherent to AH/LL at 2, 6, and 12 months were as follows: 59.4%, 32.7%, and 31.3% in cohort 1; 45.0%, 30.8%, and 31.0% in cohort 2; and 75.2%, 34.4%, and 34.0% in cohort 3, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, patients initiating AH before LL therapy, or LL before AH therapy, were less likely to be adherent than patients prescribed both agents simultaneously (odds ratios = 0.838 and 0.691, respectively; P , 0.0001). Synchronous initiation of AH and LL therapies is an important predictor of adherence.

When new drugs with improved safety or efficacy are introduced, they may be preferentially prescribed to specific populations of patients. Safety and efficacy may be underestimated if such channelling effects are not recognized. Meloxicam and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-specific inhibitors were developed as safer alternatives to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Studies of the use of meloxicam and COX-2-specific inhibitors demonstrate that both of these drugs are being prescribed to patients at increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse drug events. In the case of COX-2-specific inhibitors, this channelling appears to represent a prescribing pattern consistent with current recommendations. Subsequent analysis of the data, after adjusting for channelling bias, showed that the risk of gastrointestinal toxicity for meloxicam was similar to that for other NSAIDs, while COX-2-specific inhibitors reduced the risk of developing gastrointestinal adverse drug events by approximately 60%. These studies serve as examples of observed channelling bias and highlight the need for adjusting for channelling in order to provide a valid assessment of relevant outcomes for drugs likely to be preferentially prescribed to specific populations.