Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gastrointestinal-Related Healthcare Resource Usage Associated with a Fixed Combination of Diclofenac and Misoprostol versus Other NSAIDs

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To compare gastrointestinal (GI) healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated costs in patients taking a fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol versus other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Methods: We analysed a sample (49 033 patients) of the Government of Quebec Health Insurance Agency database. Patients were included in the study if they did not have GI events during the year preceding the date of their first NSAID prescription dispensing (the index date). Patients were followed up for 2 years. A 3-stage model was used to determine the factors that influenced the direct medical costs of GI HCRU: (i) a logistic regression model (model 1) to estimate the risk of GI HCRU; (ii) a linear regression model (model 2) to estimate the direct costs of GI HCRU for those who had such events; (iii) multiplying the estimated risks from model 1 by the estimated costs from model 2 gave the estimated direct costs of GI HCRU for all patients.

Study Perspective: Provincial government of Quebec, Canada.

Results: 1533 patients were prescribed diclofenac/misoprostol at the index date and 10 540 another NSAID. Comorbidity markers were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Of the diclofenac/misoprostol patients, 23 (1.5%) were hospitalised for GI problems compared with 194 (1.8%) of the NSAID group; 403 (26.3%) of diclofenac/misoprostol patients used gastroprotective agents compared with 2849 (27.0%) of the NSAID patients; 118 (7.7%) of diclofenac/misoprostol patients had GI diagnostic tests compared with 682 (6.5%) of the NSAID patients. The average direct medical cost of GI HCRU was 310.52 Canadian dollars ($Can) /patient (1997 values) in the diclofenac/misoprostol group compared with $Can231.19/patient (1997 values) in the NSAID group. When adjusted for baseline factors, the ratio of the total directmedical cost of GI HCRU in the diclofenac/misoprostol group to that of the NSAID group was 1.15 (95% confidence interval: 0.89, 1.48).

Conclusions: Our data showed no significant differences in GI HCRU among patients taking diclofenac/misoprostol compared with those taking NSAIDs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table V
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silverstein FE. Improving the gastrointestinal safety of NSAIDs: the development of misoprostol-from hypothesis to clinical practice. Dig Dis Sci 1998; 43 (3): 447–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Roth SH. NSAID gastropathy. A new understanding. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156 (15): 1623–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Singh G. Recent considerations in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy. Am J Med 1998; 105 (1B): 31S–8S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bjorkman DJ. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal injury. Am J Med 1996; 101 (1A): 25S–32S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh G, Ramey DR, Morfeld D, et al. Gastrointestinal tract complications of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Aprospective observational cohort study. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156 (14): 1530–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fries JF. ARAMIS and toxicity measurement. Arthritis Rheumatism and Aging Medical Information System. J Rheumatol 1995; 22 (5): 995–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cryer B, Kimmey MB. Gastrointestinal side effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Med 1998; 105 (1B): 20S–30S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wallace JL. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gastroenteropathy: the second hundred years. Gastroenterology 1997; 112 (3): 1000–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Solomon DH, Gurwitz JH. Toxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the elderly: is advanced age a risk factor? Am J Med 1997; 102 (2): 208–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolfe MM, Lichtenstein DR, Singh G. Gastrointestinal toxicity of Nonteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (24): 1888–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tannenbaum H, Davis P, Russell AS, et al. An evidence-based approach to prescribing NSAIDs in musculoskeletal disease: a Canadian consensus. Canadian NSAID Consensus Participants. CMAJ 1996; 155 (1): 77–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, Brandt KD, et al. Guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38 (11): 1535–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. American College of Rheumatology ad hoc committee of clinical guidelines. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1996; 395: 713–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yeomans ND, Tulassay Z, Juhasz L, et al. A comparison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (11)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Walt RP. Misoprostol for the treatment of peptic ulcer and anti-inflammatory-drug-induced gastroduodenal ulceration. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (22): 1575–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Silverstein FE, Graham DY, Senior JR, et al. Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123 (4): 241–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hawkey CJ, Karrasch JA, Szczepanski L, et al. Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (11): 727–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Taha AS, Hudson N, Hawkey CJ, et al. Famotidine for the prevention of gastric and duodenal ulcers caused by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (22): 1435–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Agrawal NM, Van Kerckhove HE, Erhardt LJ, et al. Misoprostol coadministered with diclofenac for prevention of gastroduodenal ulcers. A one-year study. Dig Dis Sci 1995; 40 (5): 1125–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McKenna F. Efficacy and gastroduodenal safety of a fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1995; 34 Suppl. 1: 11–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bocanegra TS, Weaver AL, Tindall EA, et al. Diclofenac/misoprostol compared with diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Arthrotec Osteoarthritis Study Group. J Rheumatol 1998; 25 (8): 1602–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Geis GS. Overall safety of Arthrotec. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1992; 96: 33–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tamblyn R, Lavoie G, Petrella L, et al. The use of prescription claims databases in pharmacoepidemiological research: the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the prescription claims database in Quebec. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48 (8): 999–1009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Von Korff M, Wagner EH, Saunders K. A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (2): 197–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Discharge Abstract Database Resource Indicators. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), 1997

  26. Hospital Statistics: preliminary annual report; 83-241-XPB. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1996

  27. Desgagne A, Castilloux AM, Angers JF, et al. The use of the bootstrap statistical method for the pharmacoeconomic cost analysis of skewed data. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5): 487–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Casella G, Berger, R. Statistical inference. Wadsworth & Brooks, 1990

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Danielle Pilon for her helpful comments on the management of gastrointestinal disorders in Quebec, and the Régie de l’Assurance Maladie du Québec for the data.

This study was supported by Merck & Co., Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Elham Rahme & Lawrence Joseph

  2. Outcomes Research, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA

    Sheldon X. Kong, Douglas J. Watson & James M. Pellissier

  3. Research Center, Hôtel-Dieu du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, 3850 Saint-Urbain, Montreal, Quebec, H2W 1T8, Canada

    Jacques LeLorier

Authors
  1. Elham Rahme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lawrence Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sheldon X. Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Douglas J. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James M. Pellissier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jacques LeLorier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rahme, E., Joseph, L., Kong, S.X. et al. Gastrointestinal-Related Healthcare Resource Usage Associated with a Fixed Combination of Diclofenac and Misoprostol versus Other NSAIDs. Pharmacoeconomics 19, 577–588 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119050-00011

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119050-00011

Keywords

Search

Navigation