Biomedical subjects

J G Fort

Publications and source records attributed to J G Fort.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Economic and gastrointestinal safety comparisons of etodolac, nabumetone, and oxaprozin from insurance claims data from patients with arthritis.

This study was conducted to compare the effect of etodolac, nabumetone, and oxaprozin use on gastrointestinal (GI) safety and associated costs based on insurance claims information from practice settings. Data were obtained from a national claims database (MarketScan) for the years 1992 to 1994. The claims data of interest were for patients with arthritis who had used etodolac, nabumetone, or oxaprozin exclusively during a 9-month follow-up period (ONLY groups), or these drugs plus (PLUS groups) the other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, sulindac, piroxicam, ketoprofen, or indomethacin. For each group, we obtained information on the use of inpatient and outpatient services for GI-related events and the associated costs. All GI admissions were classified as NSAID-induced or possibly NSAID-induced events based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9 CM) codes. All outpatient upper GI ulcers or bleeding episodes were also identified by specific ICD-9 CM code. There were no significant between-group demographic differences. The proportions of patients with NSAID-induced and possibly NSAID-induced GI admissions were 0.1% and 0.4% for the etodolac-ONLY, 0.3% and 1.0% for the nabumetone-ONLY, and 0.1% and 0.5% for the oxaprozin-ONLY groups, respectively (P > 0.05), and a similar pattern was observed among the PLUS groups. In outpatient settings, 3.9%, 4.2%, and 4.9% of the etodolac-, nabumetone-, and oxaprozin-ONLY patients, respectively (P > 0.05), and 6.0%, 5.3%, and 4.7% of the etodolac-, nabumetone-, and oxaprozin-PLUS patients, respectively, had at least one upper GI ulcer/bleeding claim (P > 0.05). The total health care costs for 9 months were approximately $3000 each for the etodolac-, nabumetone-, and oxaprozin-ONLY groups. Oxaprozin, nabumetone, and etodolac had similar GI-safety and associated-costs profiles based on information from practice settings. Also, in patients who used multiple NSAIDs, the groups did not differ in their GI-safety and cost profiles.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Cyclooxygenase-2--specific inhibitors and cardiorenal function: a randomized, controlled trial of celecoxib and rofecoxib in older hypertensive osteoarthritis patients.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis and hypertension are common comorbid conditions affecting elderly adults. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients treated with antihypertensive medication can lead to destabilization of blood pressure control and other cardiorenal events. The potential for similar interactions with cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors has not been fully explored. The authors evaluated the cardiorenal safety of two new cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors, celecoxib and rofecoxib. METHODS: This study was a 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial in patients with osteoarthritis who were > or =65 years of age and were taking antihypertensive agents. Patients received once-daily celecoxib 200 mg or rofecoxib 25 mg. The primary endpoints were the development of edema, changes in systolic blood pressure, and changes in diastolic blood pressure as measured at any time point in the study. Measurements occurred at baseline and after 1, 2, and 6 weeks of treatment. FINDINGS: Eight hundred ten patients received study medication (celecoxib, n = 411; rofecoxib, n = 399). Nearly twice as many rofecoxib- compared with celecoxib-treated patients experienced edema (9.5% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.014). Systolic blood pressure increased significantly in 17% of rofecoxib- compared with 11% of celecoxib-treated patients (P = 0.032) at any study time point. Diastolic blood pressure increased in 2.3% of rofecoxib- compared with 1.5% of celecoxib-treated patients (P = 0.44). At week 6, the change from baseline in mean systolic blood pressure was +2.6 mmHg for rofecoxib compared with -0.5 mmHg for celecoxib (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking antihypertensive therapy and receiving cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors should be monitored for the development of cardiorenal events. Patients receiving celecoxib experienced less edema and less destabilization of blood pressure control compared with those receiving rofecoxib.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Efficacy of celecoxib in treating symptoms of viral pharyngitis: a double-blind, randomized study of celecoxib versus diclofenac.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor celecoxib with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Adult patients from 27 study centers in Latin America were treated with oral doses of celecoxib 200 mg once daily or 200 mg twice daily, or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily for 5 days in a double-blind, randomized study. The primary efficacy assessment was 'Throat Pain on Swallowing' on day 3. In addition, secondary quality-of-life assessments were performed on days 3 and 5. All adverse events and treatment-emergent signs and symptoms were recorded. Data from 313 patients were evaluable for efficacy (105 celecoxib 200 mg once daily, 107 celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, 101 diclofenac 75 mg twice daily). The upper 95% confidence limits for the visual analog scale of 'Throat Pain on Swallowing' on day 3 for celecoxib 200 mg once daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily were 9.26 and 7.83, respectively. All secondary efficacy and quality-of-life measures were clinically similar for the three treatment groups, and no statistically significant differences were detected. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were similar for all groups, but numerically higher among patients taking diclofenac than celecoxib. More patients in the diclofenac group reported gastrointestinal complaints (7.3%) compared with those in the celecoxib groups (4.3% in the celecoxib 200 mg once-daily group and 3.4% in the celecoxib 200 mg twice-daily group). In conclusion, 5 days of treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as diclofenac 75 mg twice daily in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Celecoxib 200 mg once daily is also as effective as celecoxib 200 mg twice daily in this condition.

Adolescent↗