Use of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs: Is There a Change in Patient Risk Profile After Withdrawal of Rofecoxib?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Use of traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (tNSAID) increased after rofecoxib withdrawal. tNSAID use is associated with increased gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and cardiovascular (CV) risk similar to celecoxib. The objective of our study was to describe changes in celecoxib and tNSAID use regarding GI and CV risk and congestive heart failure (CHF) and renal risk that occurred in Quebec, Canada, between April 2005-March 2007 (the post-period) compared to April 2002-March 2004 (the pre-period). METHODS: Data were obtained from the provincial health insurance agency. All NSAID users ≥ 50 years of age were considered. RESULTS: Celecoxib use decreased by 23% (coxib 61%) while that of tNSAID doubled. In both periods, celecoxib users were older and included more women, and they suffered more frequently from arthritis. Users of celecoxib were more likely to have higher level of GI risk: post-period odds ratios compared to low GI risk, very high 1.79 (95% CI 1.63, 1.97), high 1.76 (95% CI 1.71, 1.81), and moderate 1.30 (95% CI 1.27, 1.33); similar results were observed in the pre-period. Celecoxib users had higher CV risk levels in the pre-period: OR compared to low CV risk, very high 1.13 (95% CI 1.08, 1.19), high 1.24 (95% CI 1.20, 1.29), and moderate 1.16 (95% CI 1.14, 1.19); and in the post-period, very high 0.85 (95% CI 0.81, 0.89), high 1.13 (95% CI 1.10, 1.16), and moderate 1.15 (95% CI 1.12, 1.17). CHF and renal risk factors did not play an important role in the choice of NSAID in either period. CONCLUSION: Current NSAID use differs from that prior to 2004. Coxib utilization decreased substantially and patients at high CV risk seem less likely to receive celecoxib, while those at high GI risk seem more likely to receive it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".