AimsTo define by amalgamation of data obtained in contemporaneous case-control studies, the risks associated with individual nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NANSAIDs) according to doses used. Methods Meta-analysis of individual patient data from three retrospective casecontrol studies using similar data collection protocols was carried out in hospitals in Catalonia, England, Scotland and Sweden. 2472 cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and 5877 controls were studied. Main outcome measures were risks associated with individual NANSAIDs according to dose used and the period of time for which they were given. Results Ibuprofen showed the lowest odds ratio (OR = 1.7; 95% confidence interval 1.1, 2.5), followed by diclofenac (4.9; 3.3, 7.1), indomethacin (6.0; 3.6, 10.0), naproxen (9.1; 6.0-13.7), piroxicam (13.1; 7.9-21.8) and ketoprofen (34.9; 12.7, 96.5). Striking dose-response relationships were seen with four to eight-fold increases in risk within conventionally used dose ranges for all except ketoprofen, where numbers were too few to allow dose analysis. Across the class, risk was highest during the first week of use (11.7; 6.5, 21.0), decreased thereafter with continuing use (5.6; 4.6, 7.0), and fell to 3.2 (2.1, 5.1) 1 week after discontinuing use. Concurrent use of more than one NANSAID substantially increased risk. Conclusions The risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with NANSAIDs varies twenty-fold depending on the drug, and by three to seven-fold depending on the dose chosen. Risk is maximal during the first week and decreases thereafter. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is not associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding at any dose and should be the first-line analgesic wherever possible.
Agranulocytosis is rare but serious. A few drugs account for two thirds of the cases. Our results also provide reassurance regarding the risk associated with a number of newly marketed drugs.
To evaluate the quality of the consumption of medicines in Spain, its potential efficacy, and its evolution during the last years, an assessment of the ‘intrinsic value’ of the most sold pharmaceutical specialities (amounting to more than 50% of total pharmaceutical market) was carried out. A panel of five clinical pharmacologist classified medicines, according to their intrinsic value, in four groups: (i) ‘high value’ (41% of analyzed medicines in 1980); (ii) ‘relative value’ (12% in 1980); (iii) ‘doubtful value’ (3%); (iv) ‘no value’ (23%), and (v) ‘unacceptable value’ (21%). Drugs were also classified according to their expected potential of use; and three groups were formed: (i) ‘high’ (32%); (ii) ‘relatively high’ (14%), and (iii) ‘reduced’ (10%). A fourth group of ‘not applicable’ (44%) in this classification was formed with pharmaceuticals considered unvaluable or unacceptable in the first classification. The results of this study suggest that this kind of analysis may be a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy of drugs in the community, and to identify priorities and guidelines in the selection of drugs in each country.
Objective: To assess the efficacy of oral drugs in the treatment of spasticity in patients with nonprogressive neurologic disease (NPND). Methods: Systematic review of double-blind randomized controlled trials of antispastic oral drugs in the treatment of spasticity in NPND. Data sources: Electronic MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and hand searches. Results: Twelve studies (469 patients) were included (6 on stroke, 3 on spinal cord diseases, and 3 on cerebral palsy). Tizanidine was assessed in four trials (276 patients, 142 exposed), dantrolene in four (103, 93), baclofen in three (70, 55), diazepam in two (127, 76), and gabapentin in one (28, all exposed). Most trials were of small size, of short duration, and their methodologic quality was inadequate. Ten trials were controlled with placebo and only two were direct comparisons between drugs. Efficacy outcome variables were heterogeneous. Only four reports described the magnitude of the antispastic effect. The incidence of adverse drug effects (drowsiness, sedation, and muscle weakness) was high. Conclusion: Evidence on the efficacy of oral antispastic drugs in NPND is weak and does not include evaluation of patients' quality of life. If any, efficacy is marginal. Adverse drug reactions were common. Better methodologic instruments are needed for the evaluation of antispastic treatment.
CI,). 7 The results of this study suggest that the regular consumption of analgesics should be routinely considered as a risk factor for any non-congenital cause of chronic renal failure. They also suggest that the risk of ESRD associated with the regular consumption of phenacetin is much higher than the risk associated with other non-narcotic analgesics.
Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to compare developments in the utilisation of antihyperglycaemic drugs (AHGDs) in ten European countries. Subjects and methods Data on the yearly utilisation of insulin and oral AHGDs were collected from public registers in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, England, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, and were expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Results Total AGHD utilisation increased everywhere, but at different rates and levels. Insulin utilisation doubled in England and Germany, but hardly changed in Belgium, Portugal or Italy. Sulfonylurea utilisation doubled in Spain, England and Denmark but was reduced in Germany and Sweden. Metformin utilisation increased greatly everywhere. There were two-to three-fold differences in AHGD utilisation even between neighbouring countries. In Finland, there were more users of both insulin (+120%) and oral AHGDs (+80%) than in Den- Diabetologia (2006) mark, and the daily oral AHGD doses were higher. In Denmark and Sweden, AHGD utilisation was equal in subjects aged <45 years, but in those ≥45 years of age, both insulin and oral AHGD utilisation were twice as high in Sweden. Conclusions/interpretation The ubiquitous increase in AHGD utilisation, particularly metformin, seems logical, considering the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes and the results of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study. However, the large differences even between neighbouring countries are more difficult to explain, and suggest different habits and attitudes in terms of screening and management of type 2 diabetes.
BackgroundSeveral randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of analgesics in postoperative pain after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery (TOS) have been published, but no studies have assessed the quality of these reports. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics for postoperative pain after TOS.MethodsReports of RCTs assessing analgesics in postoperative pain after TOS were systematically searched from electronic databases. The quality of reports was assessed using the CONSORT checklist (scoring range from 0 to 22). The quality was considered poor when scoring was 12 or lesser. The publication year and the impact factor of journals were recorded.ResultsA total of 92 reports of RCTs were identified and 69 (75%) scored 12 or lesser in CONSORT checklist (range 5-17). The mean (SD) CONSORT score of all reports was 10.6 (2.7). Missing CONSORT items included primary and secondary outcome measures (11%), the specific objectives and hypothesis definition (12%), the sample size calculation (12%), the dates defining the periods of recruitment (12%), the discussion of external validity of findings (14%), the allocation sequence generation (24%), and the interpretation of potential bias or imprecision of results (25%). There was a little improvement in CONSORT scores over time (r = 0.62; p < 0.001) and with impact factor of journals (r = 0.30; p < 0.001).ConclusionQuality of reporting RCTs on analgesics after TOS is poor. Reporting of those RCTs should be improved according to methodological standard checklists in the next years.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.