Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Patricia McGettigan

Publications and source records attributed to Patricia McGettigan.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Cardiovascular risk and inhibition of cyclooxygenase: a systematic review of the observational studies of selective and nonselective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2.

CONTEXT: Evidence that rofecoxib increases the risk of myocardial infarction has led to scrutiny of other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Regulatory agencies have provided variable advice regarding the cardiovascular risks with older nonselective NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled observational studies to compare the risks of serious cardiovascular events with individual NSAIDs and cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted of electronic databases (1985-2006), scientific meeting proceedings, epidemiological research Web sites, and bibliographies of eligible studies. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were of case-control or cohort design, reported on cardiovascular events (predominantly myocardial infarction) with cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, NSAID use, or both with nonuse/remote use of the drugs as the reference exposure. Of 7086 potentially eligible titles, 17 case-control and 6 cohort studies were included. Thirteen studies reported on cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors, 23 on NSAIDs, and 13 on both groups of drugs. DATA EXTRACTION: Two people independently extracted data and assessed study quality with disagreements resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were combined using a random-effects model. A dose-related risk was evident with rofecoxib, summary relative risk with 25 mg/d or less, 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.79) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.64-2.91) with more than 25 mg/d. The risk was elevated during the first month of treatment. Celecoxib was not associated with an elevated risk of vascular occlusion, summary relative risk 1.06 (95% CI, 0.91-1.23). Among older nonselective drugs, diclofenac had the highest risk with a summary relative risk of 1.40 (95% CI, 1.16-1.70). The other drugs had summary relative risks close to 1: naproxen, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87-1.07); piroxicam, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.70-1.59); and ibuprofen, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the findings from randomized trials regarding the risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib and suggests that celecoxib in commonly used doses may not increase the risk, contradicts claims of a protective effect of naproxen, and raises serious questions about the safety of diclofenac, an older drug.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2006

Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and coronary occlusion--exploring dose-response relationships.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ingested doses of selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: Case-control study, commenced August 2003. Cases were patients admitted to hospital with ACS (myocardial infarction/unstable angina). Controls were hospital patients admitted for reasons other than acute vascular ischaemia or conditions that are believed to be complications of treatment with COX-2 inhibitors or NSAIDs. Structured interviews were undertaken within 7 days of admission, collecting information on cardiovascular events and risk factors and all ingested drugs, including the doses of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAID consumed in the previous week and month. RESULTS: An interim analysis of the data was conducted in late 2004 to inform a review of the COX-2 inhibitors by the Australian drug regulatory agency. Between August 2003 and October 2004, we recruited 328 ACS cases and 478 controls. With non-use of COX-2 inhibitors or NSAIDs as the reference the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for ACS were: celecoxib 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.59, 2.11), rofecoxib 0.63 (0.31, 1.28) and other NSAIDs 0.67 (0.41, 1.09). Among control subjects, median daily ingested doses of celecoxib and rofecoxib were 200 mg and 13.4 mg, respectively. Using these to stratify risk, adjusted ORs for ACS were: 'low' dose (< median) 0.44 (0.19, 1.03); 'high' dose (>/= median) 1.22 (0.67, 2.21). A test for interaction across doses was statistically significant, OR 2.8 (1.0, 7.7), suggesting that at low doses, COX-2 inhibitors may be protective, becoming risk-inducing only at higher doses. CONCLUSION: The possibility that the gradient of cardiovascular risk with COX-2 inhibitors runs from protective to risk-inducing has biological plausibility and merits further investigation.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates.

PURPOSE: To test the effect of a AU dollars 2 scratch lottery ticket on response rates to a national mailed questionnaire of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted and the incentive sent to half of the participants with the first mailing. A single follow-up mailing without incentive was sent to all non-respondents. Survey respondents were then informed of the research question regarding incentives and allowed to withdraw their study data. Differences in response rates between doctors receiving and not receiving the incentive, and between respondents and non-respondents, were examined. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 47% (443 respondents). Twenty-two respondents (5%) withdrew their data after being informed of the research question. Of the remaining 421 respondents, 233 had received the incentive (response rate 49.7%) and 188 had not (40.1%, p=0.0032). The absolute increase in response rate with the incentive (9.6%, 95%CI 3.2, 15.9) was quantitatively similar in effect to the reminder mailing (11.8%). The incentive had a larger effect among the GP sample compared with specialists (13.4 vs. 5.9%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.20). There were no systematic differences in demographic characteristics between respondents and non-respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Increased response rates associated with a small incentive may reduce the need for a second mailed reminder, but strong views about the use of incentives may negatively influence the participation of some practitioners. While the overall response rate was low, there was no evidence of bias in our sample.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Describing treatment effects to patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different presentations of equivalent information (framing) on treatment decisions faced by patients. DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. English language publications allocating participants to different frames were retrieved using electronic and bibliographic searches. Two reviewers examined each article for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality. Study characteristics were tabulated and where possible, relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to estimate intervention effects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles, yielding 40 experimental studies, were included. Studies examined treatment (N = 24), immunization (N = 5), or health behavior scenarios (N = 11). Overall, active treatments were preferred when outcomes were described in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reductions or number needed to treat. Surgery was preferred to other treatments when treatment efficacy was presented in a positive frame (survival) rather than a negative frame (mortality) (relative risk [RR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64). Framing effects were less obvious for immunization and health behavior scenarios. Those with little interest in the behavior at baseline were influenced by framing, particularly when information was presented as gains. In studies judged to be of good methodological quality and/or examining actual decisions, the framing effect, although still evident, was less convincing compared to the results of all included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Framing effects varied with the type of scenario, responder characteristics, scenario manipulations, and study quality. When describing treatment effects to patients, expressing the information in more than one way may present a balanced view to patients and enable them to make informed decisions.

Communication↗
PubMed2003

Epidemiology overview of gastrointestinal and renal toxicity of NSAIDs.

This review updates previous systematic reviews to explore the overall levels of risk of serious upper gastrointestinal complications of treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and to investigate the importance of dose in explaining variations in risk. Thirty-six eligible case control studies were published between 1985 and 2000 and involved 19,648 cases and 105,373 controls. Eight eligible cohort studies included around 400,000 exposed subjects and 1 million non-exposed controls. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio from case control studies (compared with non-use of NSAIDs) for serious gastrointestinal complications is 4.06 (CI95% 3.47, 4.75); the pooled odds ratio from cohort studies is 2.29 (CI95% 1.50, 3.51). Unadjusted odds ratios range from 1.81 for ibuprofen to 7.46 for piroxicam. These data require careful interpretation because the statistical power of analyses of individual NSAIDs is lower than that for the class as a whole. There is a rank order of risk for different NSAIDs at low doses but at higher doses the odds ratios tend to converge. Ibuprofen is associated with a lower risk of serious gastrointestinal complications than other NSAIDs; this advantage is probably lost at higher doses (>1800 mg/day).

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

What price research?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Family Practice↗