Comparative safety of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators: a cohort study using the UK THIN primary care database.

BACKGROUND: Use of a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, either an anticholinergic or a beta-adrenergic receptor agonist (beta-agonist), is recommended for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In COPD, the organ system most frequently requiring medical care, other than the respiratory system, is the cardiac system. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of total mortality and certain respiratory and cardiac adverse events among users of the two types of recommended long-acting bronchodilators, we conducted a cohort study. Specifically, the study compared the safety of the only approved long-acting anticholinergic, tiotropium bromide, with the single-ingredient long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) salmeterol or formoterol in a broad population of users. METHODS: We used automated general practitioner data from the UK THIN (The Health Information Network) database as the data source for this study. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compute hazard ratio (HR) estimates and 95% CI controlling for propensity scores comprising various baseline demographic variables, medical therapies and illnesses. RESULTS: The 1061 tiotropium users and 1801 LABA users were similar with regard to risk of total mortality (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.59, 1.44) and most cardiac events, including angina (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.37, 1.59), atrial fibrillation or flutter (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.25, 1.42), myocardial infarction (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.45, 3.66) and tachycardia (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.29, 1.51). Though imprecise, there was evidence of a decreased risk of heart failure (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37, 1.12) in tiotropium users. As regards respiratory endpoints, the risk of COPD exacerbation (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.79, 1.67) and pneumonia (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.38, 3.26) were similar among users of each type of drug, although there was a decreased risk of asthma exacerbation (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.26, 0.64) in tiotropium users compared with LABA users. CONCLUSIONS: Users of tiotropium and single-ingredient LABA had similar risk of total mortality and cardiovascular endpoints. The decreased risk of asthma exacerbations with tiotropium may be due to residual confounding by indication. Confidence limits for most events include reduced risks for tiotropium and also small increases in risk. Nevertheless, the point estimates suggest that tiotropium was associated with a lower risk of each cardiac event except myocardial infarction. However, the small number of cases means that further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Physician-reported management of edema and destabilized blood pressure in cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor users with osteoarthritis and treated hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The addition of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug to the regimen of a patient with treated hypertension can cause a destabilization of blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe physician-reported management of clinically significant edema and/or destabilized blood pressure in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and hypertension when initiating therapy with rofecoxib or celecoxib. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to physicians who attended one of several arthritis consultant programs sponsored by Pharmacia Corporation, with attendees selected by local sales representatives. Each program included a clinical presentation by a physician concerning the cardiorenal safety of celecoxib, followed by a consultative presentation and session led by a Pharmacia Clinical Education Manager. RESULTS: A total of 828 physicians in the following specialties completed the survey: family practice (33.0%), internal medicine (25.0%), orthopedics (15.2%), and rheumatology (11.4%). Responding physicians expected that the majority of patients who experienced edema would contact them (68.4%). They reported that they schedule follow-up visits for blood pressure monitoring 65.6% of the time after initiating a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-specific inhibitor, with family practitioners and internists most likely to indicate that they would do so and orthopedists least likely. Responding physicians indicated that the presence of edema and destabilized blood pressure generally led to discontinuation of the COX-2-specific inhibitor (58%-82% of the time). Internists and family practitioners were most likely to report that they treat edema by initiating or modifying diuretic therapy (33%-51% of the time). For destabilized blood pressure, an antihypertensive drug was reported to be initiated or modified 40% to 55% of the time by family practitioners and internists, whereas orthopedists indicated that they referred patients to the primary care provider. The COX-2-specific inhibitor prescribed resulted in management differences: physicians indicated that they were more likely to switch from rofecoxib to celecoxib in the event of edema or destabilized blood pressure, whereas they were more likely to adjust the celecoxib dose than the rofecoxib dose. Because the data were captured from convenience samples of physicians attending sponsored meetings, it is possible that respondents provided the answers they thought the sponsor would want. Because this was a cross-sectional survey, reported behavior was not compared with actual behavior. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of physicians reported that they monitor patients with OA and hypertension for the occurrence of destabilized blood pressure and edema after initiation of a COX-2-specific inhibitor. Physicians indicated that they would nearly always intervene when either event is identified.