Show simple item record

Over and Under-utilization of Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective Inhibitors by Primary Care Physicians and Specialists: The Tortoise and the Hare Revisited

dc.contributor.authorDe Smet, Brian D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFendrick, A. Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorStevenson, James G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBernstein, Steven J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T22:09:08Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T22:09:08Z
dc.date.issued2006-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationDe Smet, Brian D . ; Fendrick, A . Mark; Stevenson, James G . ; Bernstein, Steven J . (2006). "Over and Under-utilization of Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective Inhibitors by Primary Care Physicians and Specialists: The Tortoise and the Hare Revisited." Journal of General Internal Medicine 21(7): 694-697. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75173>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0884-8734en_US
dc.identifier.issn1525-1497en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75173
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16808768&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractTo compare prescribing trends and appropriateness of use of traditional and cyclooxygenase-2 selective (COX-2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. DESIGN : Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS : One thousand five hundred and seventy-six adult patients continuously enrolled for at least 1 year with an independent practice association of a University-associated managed care plan who were started on a traditional NSAID or a COX-2 inhibitor from 1999 to 2002 and received at least 3 separate medication fills. MEASUREMENTS : Physician specialty was identified from office visits. Appropriateness of utilization was based on gastrointestinal risk characteristics. RESULTS : Primary care patients were younger and less likely to have comorbid conditions. Despite similar GI risk, COX-2 use among patients seen by PCPs was half that of patients seen by specialists (21% vs 44%, P <.001). While PCPs overused cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors (COX-2s) less often than specialists (19% vs 41%, P <.001), they also tended to underuse COX-2s in patients who were at increased GI risk (46% vs 32%, P =.063). This represents a 3-fold and 8-fold difference in overuse versus underuse for PCPs and specialists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS : Using COX-2s as a model for physician adoption of new therapeutic agents, specialists were more likely to use these new medications for patients likely to benefit but were also significantly more likely to use them for patients without a clear indication. This study demonstrates the tension between appropriate adoption of innovative therapies for those individuals who would benefit from their use and those individuals who would receive no added clinical benefit but would incur added cost and be placed at increased risk.en_US
dc.format.extent83040 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rights© 2006 by the Society of General Internal Medicine. All rights reserveden_US
dc.subject.otherPrimary Careen_US
dc.subject.otherAppropriatenessen_US
dc.subject.otherCOX-2en_US
dc.subject.otherPractice Patternsen_US
dc.subject.otherSpecialisten_US
dc.titleOver and Under-utilization of Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective Inhibitors by Primary Care Physicians and Specialists: The Tortoise and the Hare Revisiteden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pharmacy Services, University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Health Management & Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherCenter for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.en_US
dc.identifier.pmid16808768en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75173/1/j.1525-1497.2006.00463.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00463.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of General Internal Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreference1.  Center for American Progress. No Relief for Rising Drug Costs. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83161. Accessed January 31, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAyanian JZ, Guadagnoli E, McNeil BJ, Cleary PD. Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157: 2570 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChin MH, Zhang JX, Merrell K. Specialty differences in the care of older patients with diabetes. Med Care. 2000; 38: 131 – 40.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChin MH, Friedmann PD, Cassel CK, Lang RM. Difference in generalist and specialist physicians' knowledge and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 523 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDonohoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care. Arch Intern Med. 1998; 158: 1596 – 608.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFendrick AM, Garabedian-Ruffalo SM. A clinician's guide to the selection of NSAID therapy. Pharm Ther. 2002; 27: 579 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePeura DA. Gastrointestinal safety and tolerability of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and cyclooxygenase-2–selective inhibitors. Cleveland Clin J Med. 2002; 69 ( Suppl. 1 ): 31 – SI39.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference8.  National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technology Appraisal No. 27. Guidance on the Use of Cyclo-oxygenase (COX) II Selective Inhibitors, Celecoxib, Rofecoxib, Meloxicam and Etodolac for Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/coxiifullguidance.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFendrick AM, Schwartz JS. Physicians' decisions regarding the acquisition of technology. In: Gelijns AC, Dawkins HV, eds. Medical Innovations at the Crossroads. Vol. 4, Adopting New Medical Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994: 71 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirth RA, Fendrick AM, Chernew ME. Specialist and generalist physicians' adoption of antibiotic therapy to eradicate helicobacter pylori infection. Med Care. 1996; 34: 204.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSebaldt RJ, Petrie A, Goldsmith CH, Marentette MA. Appropriateness of NSAID and Coxib prescribing for patients with osteoarthritis by primary care physicians in ontario: results from the CANOAR study. Am J Manage Care. 2004; 10: 742 – 50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTannenbaum H, Peloso PMJ, Russel AS, Marlow B. An evidence-based approach to prescribing NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the second canadian consensus conference. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 7 ( Suppl A ): 4A – 16A.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMamdani M, Juurlink DN, Kopp A, Naglie G, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Gastrointestinal bleeding after the introduction of COX 2 inhibitors: ecological study. BMJ. 2004; 328: 1415 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSilverstein FE, Faich G, Goldstein JL, et al. Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The class study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000; 284: 1247 – 55.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, et al. Comparison of upper GI toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 1520 – 8.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.