Comparison of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) inhibitors use in Australia and Nova Scotia (Canada)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) inhibitors were marketed aggressively and their rapid uptake caused safety concerns and budgetary challenges in Canada and Australia. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • The study showed that there were similarities in the anti‐inflammatory prescribing pattern between Australia and Nova Scotia; however, volumes of both ns‐NSAIDs and COX‐2 inhibitors prescribed were higher in Australia in the study period. The remarkable increase observed in Australia in NSAIDs use was essentially due to the much higher COX‐2 inhibitor use. Differences in regulatory and marketing practices, as well as cultural and historical differences might be some of the reasons for differences in the NSAID prescribing between Australia and Nova Scotia. AIMS Cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) inhibitors were marketed aggressively and their rapid uptake caused safety concerns and budgetary challenges in Canada and Australia. The objectives of this study were to compare and contrast COX‐2 inhibitors and nonselective nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (ns‐NSAID) use in Nova Scotia (Canada) and Australia and to identify lessons learned from the two jurisdictions. METHODS Ns‐NSAID and COX‐2 inhibitor Australian prescription data (concession beneficiaries) were downloaded from the Medicare Australia website (2001–2006). Similar Pharmacare data were obtained for Nova Scotia (seniors and those receiving Community services). Defined daily doses per 1000 beneficiaries day −1 were calculated. COX‐2 inhibitors/all NSAIDs ratios were calculated for Australia and Nova Scotia. Ns‐NSAIDs were divided into low, moderate and high risk for gastrointestinal side‐effects and the proportions of use in each group were determined. Which drugs accounted for 90% of use was also calculated. RESULTS Overall NSAID use was different in Australia and Nova Scotia. However, ns‐NSAID use was similar. COX‐2 inhibitor dispensing was higher in Australia. The percentage of COX‐2 inhibitor prescriptions over the total NSAID use was different in the two countries. High‐risk NSAID use was much higher in Australia. Low‐risk NSAID prescribing increased in Nova Scotia over time. The low‐risk/high‐risk ratio was constant throughout over the period in Australia and increased in Nova Scotia. CONCLUSIONS There are significant differences in Australia and Nova Scotia in use of NSAIDs, mainly due to COX‐2 prescribing. Nova Scotia has a higher proportion of low‐risk NSAID use. Interventions to provide physicians with information on relative benefits and risks of prescribing specific NSAIDs are needed, including determining their impact.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».