Utilization of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Quebec: adherence to the Canadian consensus on prescription guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse events associated with the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have led to the publication of Canadian prescription guidelines. Prescription practices following the publication of these guidelines and the introduction of COX-2 inhibitors in the Quebec formulary of reimbursed medications remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of contra-indications and selected risk factors for NSAID-toxicity among COX-2 inhibitor users and non-selective NSAID users. METHODS: A case-control analysis was conducted in a random sample of Quebec adult drug plan members who were treated with celecoxib (n=42,422 cases), rofecoxib (n=25,674 cases), full-dose (anti-inflammatory doses) of non-selective NSAIDs (n=9,673 cases), or low-dose NSAIDs (n=2,745 controls) in the year 2000. Data were obtained from the Quebec prescription and medical services databases (RAMQ). RESULTS: Patients with a history of gastropathy were more likely to be prescribed COX-2 inhibitors than low-dose NSAIDs; the odds ratios were 1.73 (95%CI: 1.56-1.91) and 1.49 (1.33-1.66), respectively for celecoxib and rofecoxib. Corresponding results for concomitant use of anticoagulants were 1.95 (1.34-2.83) for celecoxib and 1.87 (1.26-2.77) for rofecoxib, and for use of corticosteroids they were 1.29 (1.08-1.54) and 1.23 (1.01-1.49). Conversely, patients with the following characteristics were less likely to receive COX-2 inhibitors than low-dose non-selective NSAIDs: age 75+ (OR=0.64; 0.56-0.72 for celecoxib, OR=0.48; 0.76-0.99 for rofecoxib), hypertension (OR=0.83; 0.75-0.92 for celecoxib, OR=0.87; 0.77-0.97 for rofecoxib), and concomitant use of diuretics (OR=0.72; 0.63-0.82 for celecoxib; OR=0.77; 0.66-0.89 for rofecoxib). CONCLUSION: Patients with risk factors for NSAID gastropathy were more likely prescribed COX-2 inhibitors, while the presence of other contra-indications led to the prescription of low-dose non-selective NSAIDs. However, 12.7% of users of full-dose non-selective NSAIDs were age 75+ and 12.0% had a history of gastropathy, which are considered important risk factors for adverse events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".