Risk of severe cardiovascular events following COPD exacerbations: results from the EXACOS-CV study in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This real-world study-the first of its kind in a Spanish population-aimed to explore severe risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause death following exacerbations in a large cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We included individuals with a COPD diagnosis code between 2014 and 2018 from the BIG-PAC health care claims database. The primary outcome was a composite of a first severe cardiovascular event (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure decompensation, cerebral ischemia, arrhythmia) or all-cause death following inclusion in the cohort. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models estimated HRs for associations between exposed time periods (1-7, 8-14, 15-30, 31-180, 181-365, and >365 days) following an exacerbation of any severity, and following moderate or severe exacerbations separately (vs unexposed time before a first exacerbation following cohort inclusion). RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.03 years, 18 901 of 24 393 patients (77.5%) experienced ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation, and 8741 (35.8%) experienced the primary outcome. The risk of a severe cardiovascular event increased following moderate/severe COPD exacerbation onset vs the unexposed period, with rates being most increased during the first 1 to 7 days following exacerbation onset (HR, 10.10; 95%CI, 9.29-10.97) and remaining increased >365 days after exacerbation onset (HR, 1.65; 95%CI, 1.49-1.82). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe cardiovascular events or death increased following moderate/severe exacerbation onset, illustrating the need for proactive multidisciplinary care of patients with COPD to prevent exacerbations and address other cardiovascular risk factors.

Psychometric properties of the Spanish SABA Reliance Questionnaire (SRQ) among patients with asthma.

Background: Patient beliefs about their asthma and its treatment may contribute to overreliance on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) therapy, leading to increased risk for potentially life-threatening exacerbations. The SABA Reliance Questionnaire (SRQ) is a validated tool for evaluating patients beliefs about SABAs that may lead to overreliance and overuse. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the SRQ. Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional, single-country questionnaire validation study in adults with asthma. Reliability (ordinal α) and validity (convergent and discriminant) of SRQ were evaluated. Concurrent validity was assessed with the Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and a visual analog scale item to assess patients' perceptions of the importance of their reliever inhaler. Discriminant validity was assessed through differences in mean SRQ sum score between patients with high adherence to inhaled corticosteroids and those with low adherence, as measured by the Medication Adherence Report Scale-9 and the Test of Adherence to Inhalers. Results: The Spanish-SRQ exhibited good psychometric properties among 131 patients with asthma. Internal consistency was confirmed with an ordinal α of 0.85. All 5 items were useful for measuring patients' beliefs about SABAs that may lead them to be overreliant on SABAs. Concurrent validity with the Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire, Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and a visual analog scale item assessing patients' perceptions of the importance of their reliever inhaler was demonstrated. Conclusion: The Spanish version of the SRQ is a valid tool for evaluating potential overreliance on SABAs in Spanish-speaking patients to enable early intervention and support.

Geographical differences in the use of oral corticosteroids in patients with severe asthma in Spain: heat map based on existing databases analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although there are currently alternative treatments to the long-term use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in severe asthma, recent studies show excessive use depending on geography and differences in medical practice. The objective of the study was to describe the differences in OCS use for severe asthma across the Spanish geography. METHODS: This is a real-world study using existing databases (year 2019): longitudinal patient database (EMR), based on electronic medical records, and database of pharmacological consumption (Sell-in) in basic healthcare areas. With EMR, the percentage of OCS prescriptions corresponding to patients with severe asthma (ICD-9 "asthma" and prescription of biological treatment and/or high dose of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting inhaled ß2 agonists) was calculated. This percentage was transferred to the OCS consumption of each basic healthcare area as reported in the Sell-in database and a national heat map was created. The estimation of OCS use in patients with severe asthma per 100,000 inhabitants for each region was calculated by grouping basic healthcare areas and the mean OCS use per patient for different regions in Spain was also estimated. RESULTS: Patients with severe asthma in Spain were mostly female (69.6%), with a mean age (SD) of 57.6 years (18.01). Median time (Pc25-Pc75) since asthma diagnosis was 83.1 months (34.65-131.56). Of all patients with OCS prescriptions in 2019 identified in EMR, 4.4% corresponded to patients with severe asthma. Regions with the highest OCS use were Asturias, Andalucía, and Galicia, whereas those with the lowest use were Navarra, Baleares, Madrid and País Vasco. The mean OCS use per patient with severe asthma in 2019 throughout Spain was 1099.85 mg per patient, ranging from 782.99 mg in Navarra to 1432.64 in Asturias. CONCLUSIONS: There are geographical differences between Spanish regions with respect to the use of OCS in patients with severe asthma. The national mean consumption of OCS per patient with severe asthma and year is above the limits that indicate good asthma control.

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Persistence, and Outcomes Among Patients With COPD Treated With Single- or Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a leading cause of death and disability. COPD therapy goals include reducing exacerbations and improving symptom control. Single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is indicated for patients with frequent exacerbations despite bronchodilator therapy. No available evidence compares SITT vs MITT in Spain in terms of treatment persistence, exacerbations, and other outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do COPD patients in Spain initiating SITT vs MITT have improved persistence, exacerbations, and health care resource utilization? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This real-world, observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records in the Spanish National Healthcare System BIG-PAC database to identify COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years initiating SITT or MITT (using two or three inhalers) between June 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Comparative data on persistence (allowing up to 60 days without prescription refill), exacerbation rates, and health care resource utilization and costs during 12-month follow-up were analyzed. Multivariate adjusted analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eligible patients (N = 4,625) initiating SITT (n = 1,011) or MITT (n = 3,614) had a mean age of 70.9 years; most were male (73.9%) with mainly moderate (62.0%) or severe (26.5%) airflow limitation. Between-cohort baseline characteristics were similar. At 12-month follow-up, SITT patients had higher persistence (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.22-1.53; P < .001), reduced risk of exacerbations (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.61-0.77; P = .001), and lower all-cause mortality risk (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.63-0.71, P = .027), compared with MITT patients. SITT was associated with significantly reduced health care resource use (mean annual cost savings: €403 vs MITT). For both SITT and MITT, persistence was associated with improved exacerbation rates vs nonpersistence, and substantial adjusted mean annual cost savings (€2,115 and €2,700, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Patients initiating SITT had a clinically relevant improvement in persistence leading to reductions in mortality, incidence of exacerbations, and health care resource use with consequent mean cost savings.

Rationale and study protocol of ACQUIRE, a prospective, observational study measuring quality of life, treatment preference and treatment satisfaction of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is considered the most common inherited renal disease. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and patient experience in ADPKD are difficult to quantify and have not been well studied, particularly in the early stages of the disease. There is evidence to suggest that early-stage ADPKD patients have a lower Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) than the general population due to the signs and symptoms of early-stage ADPKD. However, no research has been carried out on the HRQoL of early-stage ADPKD patients using validated ADPKD-specific PRO measures. Additionally, a new disease progression delaying treatment option has recently emerged for ADPKD. Patient preference for this treatment and unmet treatment needs have not yet been investigated. METHODS: The ACQUIRE study is a prospective, observational study investigating the influence of early-stage ADPKD-related symptoms and treatments on PROs. It aims to collect real-world data on patient demographics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and PROs such as HRQoL, treatment satisfaction and treatment preference in early-stage ADPKD. Adult ADPKD patients in stages 1-3 of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with evidence of rapidly progressing disease are being recruited from seven European countries. At baseline and every 3 months, for a follow-up period of 18 months, general and disease-specific questionnaires are completed remotely to capture patients' own assessment of their overall and ADPKD-related HRQoL. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is also used to investigate the value patients place on different attributes of hypothetical treatment options (e.g. treatment outcomes, side effects) and the role each attribute plays in determining overall patient treatment preference. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will highlight the real-world effects of ADPKD-related challenges on PROs including HRQoL, treatment experience and satisfaction; and help physicians gain greater insight into likely disease outcomes based on early-stage patient symptoms and patients' experience with treatment. Data captured by the DCE may inform ADPKD treatment decision-making from a patient perspective. The DCE will also provide insights into which patients are more likely to perceive benefit from treatments based on the value and trade-offs they place on specific treatment attributes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02848521 . Protocol Number/Version: 156-303-00096/Final.

Quantifying the treatment goals of people recently diagnosed with schizophrenia using best-worst scaling.

OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to quantify the treatment goals of people recently diagnosed with schizophrenia and explore their impact on treatment plan. METHODS: People aged 18-35 years with a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia within the past 5 years were surveyed in the UK, Germany, and Italy. Treatment goals were assessed via a validated best-worst scaling instrument, where participants evaluated subsets of 13 possible treatment goals identified using a balanced incomplete block design. Participants identified the most and least important goals within each task. Data were also collected on current treatment and preference for daily oral versus long-acting injectable (LAI) treatment. Hierarchical Bayes was used to identify preference weights for the goals, and latent class analysis was used to identify segments of people with similar goals. The segments were compared with the current treatment and preference for oral versus LAI treatment. RESULTS: Across 100 participants, the average age was 26 years, 75% were male and 50% were diagnosed within 2 years ago. Overall, preferences were most favorable for reduced disease symptoms, think clearly, reduced hospitalizations, reduced anxiety, and take care of self. A total of 61% preferred oral medication and 39% LAI. Two groups were identified with different treatment goals; 50% of participants emphasized clinical goals, including reduced disease symptoms (preference weight =19.7%), reduced hospitalizations (15.5%), and reduced anxiety (10.5%). The other 50% emphasized functional goals, including improved relationships with family/friends (11.4%), increased interest in work (10.6%), experiencing a fuller range of emotions (8.4%), and ability to socialize (7.5%). Those emphasizing functional goals were more likely to be on LAI (44% versus 26%; p=0.059) and preferred LAI (46% versus 32%; p=0.151). CONCLUSIONS: People with recent-onset schizophrenia may focus more on clinical goals or functional goals, a discussion of which may help facilitate patient engagement.

Opportunities for improvement in anti-thrombotic therapy and other strategies for the management of acute coronary syndromes: Insights from EPICOR, an international study of current practice patterns.

AIMS: To describe international patterns and opportunities for improvement of pre- and in-hospital care of patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes (ACS), with special focus on anti-thrombotic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: EPICOR (long-tErm follow-uP of anti-thrombotic management patterns In acute CORonary syndrome patients), an international, cohort study, which enrolled 10,568 consecutive ACS survivors from 555 hospitals in 20 countries across Europe and Latin America (September 2010 to March 2011), prospectively registered detailed information on pre- and in-hospital management. Globally, 4738 (44.8%) were attended before hospitalization, 4241 (40.1%) had an ECG, 2119 (20%) received anti-platelet therapy and 101 STEMI patients (2%) fibrinolysis. In-hospital, 7944 patients (75.2%) received dual anti-platelet therapy, most often with clopidogrel (69.7%), and less with prasugrel (5.4%); 1705 (16.1%) had triple anti-platelet therapy, and 849 (8%) single anti-platelet therapy. STEMI patients more often received pre-hospital anti-thrombotics, and prasugrel, GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and UFH in-hospital (all p < 0.001). More NSTE-ACS patients received clopidogrel, single anti-platelet therapy, and fondaparinux (all p < 0.001). As many as 33% of ACS patients were medically managed. A significant decreasing gradient was found between Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe and Latin America in use of more potent patterns of anti-platelet therapy, reperfusion therapy and invasive strategy. CONCLUSION: This large international study shows room for improvement in use of anti-thrombotic drugs and other strategies for optimal management of ACS, including pre-hospital ECG and anti-thrombotic therapy. Regional practice differences not based on evidence or conditioned by economic constraints should be reduced.

Análisis de coste-efectividad de dapagliflozina en comparación con los inhibidores de la DPP4 y otros antidiabéticos orales en el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en España / Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin compared to DPP4 inhibitors and other oral antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of type-2 diabetes mellitus in Spain

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la eficiencia de la terapia combinada de metformina y dapagliflozina, un nuevo antidiabético oral con un mecanismo de acción independiente de la insulina, en el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) en comparación con inhibidores de DPP4, sulfonilureas y tiazolidindionas, combinados también con metformina. DISEÑO: Análisis de coste-efectividad utilizando un modelo de simulación de eventos discretos a partir de los resultados de los ensayos clínicos disponibles y considerando un horizonte temporal de toda la vida del paciente. Emplazamiento: Perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. PARTICIPANTES: El modelo simuló la historia natural de 30.000 pacientes con DM2 para cada opción comparada. MEDICIONES PRINCIPALES: Años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) y consecuencias económicas del manejo de la enfermedad y sus complicaciones. Se consideraron los costes directos (actualizados a euros de 2013) y se aplicó un descuento del 3% tanto para costes como para resultados en salud. RESULTADOS: El análisis principal comparó dapagliflozina con los inhibidores de DPP4, resultando dapagliflozina como una opción de tratamiento que aportaría una ligera mayor efectividad (0,019 AVAC) con menores costes totales asociados (−42 Euros). En los análisis adicionales, dapagliflozina fue una opción coste-efectiva en comparación con sulfonilureas y tiazolidindionas con razones de coste por AVAC ganado de 3.560 Euros y 2.007 Euros, respectivamente. Los análisis de sensibilidad univariantes y probabilístico confirmaron la solidez de los RESULTADOS: CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados del análisis realizado sugieren que dapagliflozina, en combinación con metformina, sería una alternativa coste-efectiva en el contexto español para el tratamiento de la DM2

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of the combined therapy with metformin and dapagliflozin, a new oral anti-diabetic drug with an insulin-independent mechanism of action, in the treatment of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared to DPP4 inhibitors, sulphonylureas and thiazolidindiones, also combined with metformin. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation model based on the results of the available clinical trials and considering patient's entire life as time horizon. SETTING: National Health System perspective. PARTICIPANTS: The model simulated the natural history of 30,000 patients with T2DM for each of the options compared. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and economic consequences of managing the disease and its complications. The analysis considered direct costs updated to 2013. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and health outcomes. RESULTS: In the main analysis comparing dapagliflozin with DPP4 inhibitors, dapagliflozin resulted in a treatment option that would provide a slightly higher effectiveness (0.019 QALY) and lower overall associated costs (- 42 Euros). In the additional analyses, dapagliflozin was a cost-effective option compared with sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones resulting in a cost per QALY gained of 3,560 Euros and 2,007 Euros, respectively. The univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analyses performed suggested that dapagliflozin, in combination with metformin, would be a cost-effective alternative in the Spanish context for the treatment of T2DM

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin compared to DPP4 inhibitors and other oral antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of type-2 diabetes mellitus in Spain]. / Análisis de coste-efectividad de dapagliflozina en comparación con los inhibidores de la DPP4 y otros antidiabéticos orales en el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en España.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of the combined therapy with metformin and dapagliflozin, a new oral anti-diabetic drug with an insulin-independent mechanism of action, in the treatment of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared to DPP4 inhibitors, sulphonylureas and thiazolidindiones, also combined with metformin. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation model based on the results of the available clinical trials and considering patient's entire life as time horizon. SETTING: National Health System perspective. PARTICIPANTS: The model simulated the natural history of 30,000 patients with T2DM for each of the options compared. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and economic consequences of managing the disease and its complications. The analysis considered direct costs updated to 2013. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and health outcomes. RESULTS: In the main analysis comparing dapagliflozin with DPP4 inhibitors, dapagliflozin resulted in a treatment option that would provide a slightly higher effectiveness (0.019 QALY) and lower overall associated costs (-€42). In the additional analyses, dapagliflozin was a cost-effective option compared with sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones resulting in a cost per QALY gained of €3,560 and €2,007, respectively. The univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analyses performed suggested that dapagliflozin, in combination with metformin, would be a cost-effective alternative in the Spanish context for the treatment of T2DM.

Contemporary inter-hospital transfer patterns for the management of acute coronary syndrome patients: findings from the EPICOR study.

AIM: The EPICOR observational study was designed to describe antithrombotic strategies in a broad acute coronary syndrome (ACS) population; it also included information on inter-hospital transfers and institutional resources. METHODS AND RESULTS: EPICOR enrolled 10,568 consecutively discharged patients with ST-elevation (STE) or non-STE (NSTE) ACS in 555 centres in 20 countries across Europe and Latin America. Patients were categorized as non-transferred, transferred in from another hospital and then discharged, or transferred out to a second hospital but discharged from their initial hospital after transfer back. Two-thirds of ACS patients were non-transferred, of which only 14% were hospitalized at a centre without a catheterization laboratory, and one-third were transferred in or transferred out. Almost all transferred out patients were transferred out to a hospital with catheterization facilities, most often for primary/urgent/rescue (78%) or planned catheterization (18%) in STE myocardial infarction (STEMI), and primary/urgent/rescue (44%) or planned (43%) catheterization in NSTE-ACS. Transferred in patients were more likely to have a STEMI (60%) than non-transferred (44%) and transferred out patients (36%). In STEMI patients, time from symptom onset to catheterization was shorter in non-transferred patients (median 3.5 h vs. 5.9 h for transferred in and 6.3 h for transferred out). In NSTE-ACS, cardiac markers were positive in 66% of non-transferred patients versus 78% and 82% in transferred in and transferred out, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of on-site 24/7 facilities or the availability of more advanced care are frequent reasons for inter-hospital transfer in ACS. Further follow-up of these patients will help to determine whether these practice patterns affect outcome.

Eficiencia de la combinación naproxeno/esomeprazol para el tratamiento de la artrosis en España / Efficiency of naproxen/esomeprazole in association for osteoarthrosis treatment in Spain

Objetivo: Evaluar, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud, la eficiencia de la combinación a dosis fija de naproxeno y esomeprazol (naproxeno/esomeprazol) en artrosis frente a otros AINE en monoterapia o combinados con un inhibidor de la bomba de protones (IBP). Métodos: Se empleó un modelo de Markov con estados de salud definidos por episodios gastrointestinales (GI): dispepsia, úlcera péptica sintomática o complicada; o cardiovasculares (CV): infarto agudo de miocardio, ictus o insuficiencia cardiaca. El modelo es semejante al utilizado por el NICE en su evaluación de AINE en artrosis publicada en 2008. Se estimaron, en un horizonte temporal de 1 año (ciclos de 3 meses), los costes totales (D , 2012), incluyendo coste farmacológico y de manejo de episodios, y los resultados en salud, expresados en años de vidaajustados por calidad (AVAC), en pacientes mayores de 65 años con riesgo GI aumentado, tras 6 meses de tratamiento con celecoxib (200 mg/día), celecoxib + IBP, diclofenaco (150 mg/día) + IBP, etoricoxib (60 mg/día), etoricoxib + IBP, ibuprofeno (1.800 mg/día) + IBP, naproxeno (1.000 mg/día) + IBP o naproxeno/ esomeprazol (naproxeno 1.000 mg/esomeprazol 40 mg/día). El IBP fue omeprazol (20 mg/día). Resultados: Naproxeno/esomeprazol resultó dominante (más efectivo y menor coste) respecto a celecoxib, etoricoxib y diclofenaco + IBP. Celecoxib + IBP y etoricoxib + IBP fueron más efectivos. Considerando un umbral de 30.000 D /AVAC adicional, naproxeno/esomeprazol resultó coste-efectivo respecto a ibuprofeno + IBP y naproxeno + IBP con valores de relación coste-efectividad incremental de 15.154D y 5.202 D /AVAC adicional, respectivamente. Conclusiones: La combinación a dosis fijas de naproxeno y esomeprazol en pacientes con artrosis y riesgo GI aumentado es una alternativa coste-efectiva e incluso dominante frente a otras opciones (AU)

Objective: To assess, from the perspective of the National Healthcare System, the efficiency of a fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole (naproxen/esomeprazole) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) compared to other NSAID, alone or in combination with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Methods: A Markov model was used; it included different health states defined by gastrointestinal (GI) events: dyspepsia, symptomatic or complicated ulcer; or cardiovascular (CV) events: myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure. The model is similar to the one used by NICE in its NSAID evaluation of OA published in 2008 The total costs (D , 2012), including drug and event-related costs, and the health outcomes expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated in patients with increased GI risk, aged 65 or over, for a 1-year time horizon and a 6-month treatment with celecoxib (200 mg/day), celecoxib + PPI, diclofenac (150 mg/day) + PPI, etoricoxib (60 mg/day), etoricoxib + PPI, ibuprofen (1,800 mg/day) + PPI, naproxen (1,000 mg/day) + PPI or naproxen/esomeprazole (naproxen 1,000 mg/esomeprazole 40 mg/day). The selected PPI was omeprazole (20 mg/day). Results: Naproxen/esomeprazole was a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) compared to celecoxib, etoricoxib and diclofenac + PPI. Celecoxib + PPI and etoricoxib + PPI were more effective. Considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of D 30,000 per additional QALY, naproxen/esomeprazole was cost-effective compared to ibuprofen + PPI and naproxen + PPI with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of D15,154 and D 5,202 per additional QALY, respectively. Conclusions: A fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole is a cost-effective, and even dominant, alternative compared to other options in OA patients with increased GI risk (AU)

Efficiency of naproxen/esomeprazole in association for osteoarthrosis treatment in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess, from the perspective of the National Healthcare System, the efficiency of a fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole (naproxen/esomeprazole) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) compared to other NSAID, alone or in combination with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). METHODS: A Markov model was used; it included different health states defined by gastrointestinal (GI) events: dyspepsia, symptomatic or complicated ulcer; or cardiovascular (CV) events: myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure. The model is similar to the one used by NICE in its NSAID evaluation of OA published in 2008. The total costs (€, 2012), including drug and event-related costs, and the health outcomes expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated in patients with increased GI risk, aged 65 or over, for a 1-year time horizon and a 6-month treatment with celecoxib (200mg/day), celecoxib+PPI, diclofenac (150mg/day)+PPI, etoricoxib (60mg/day), etoricoxib+PPI, ibuprofen (1,800mg/day)+PPI, naproxen (1,000mg/day)+PPI or naproxen/esomeprazole (naproxen 1,000mg/esomeprazole 40mg/day). The selected PPI was omeprazole (20mg/day). RESULTS: Naproxen/esomeprazole was a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) compared to celecoxib, etoricoxib and diclofenac+PPI. Celecoxib+PPI and etoricoxib+PPI were more effective. Considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000 per additional QALY, naproxen/esomeprazole was cost-effective compared to ibuprofen+PPI and naproxen+PPI with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of €15,154 and €5,202 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole is a cost-effective, and even dominant, alternative compared to other options in OA patients with increased GI risk.