Search

Summary: What is known and objective: Important risk factors and over‐the‐counter (OTC) dispensing of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often not routinely recorded in electronic health records. This study aimed to assess the impact of patient's reports on these factors on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for NSAID use. Methods: A nested case‐control study was conducted among adults in the Utrecht Cardiovascular Pharmacogenetics study. Cases were patients with a first diagnosis of AMI as a hospital discharge diagnosis and controls were those without AMI. NSAID exposure was either current use of selective COX‐2 inhibitors or conventional NSAIDs. Information was collected from The Dutch PHARMO Database Network (pharmacy records of drug dispensing linked to hospitalization records) and the patient's questionnaire (lifestyle factors, body mass index and history of cardiovascular diseases). Unconditional logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and to control for confounding factors. Results: We identified 970 AMI cases and 2974 controls. Among cases, 11 (1.1%) and 185 (19.1%) were exposed to selective COX‐2 inhibitors and conventional NSAIDs, respectively. Compared to non‐use, none of these drug classes were associated with an increased risk of AMI (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.52‐2.18 and 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77‐1.12, respectively). Additional adjustment for potential confounders from patient's reports did not change the risk estimates (adjusted OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.53‐2.22 and 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73‐1.09, respectively). What is new and conclusion: Additional confounding control for variables from self‐reported data or considering self‐reported OTC NSAID use did not change the risk estimates for the association between NSAIDs and AMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hungarian Medical Journal / Orvosi Hetilap is the property of Akademiai Kiado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Provision of patient-centred health care is impossible without the knowledge of the patient's perceptions, feelings and expectations. In contrast, participants feel the available time limited for satisfactory communication. This shortage may partially be compensated by measurements belonging to the concept of Patient Reported Outcomes. Concept definition, invention circle and use of the methods are largely diverse, eventually leading to misinterpretation of outcomes. For this reason, some organizations developed instructions, guidelines supporting uniform interpretation and application. Measures so far have rather served research goals yet may be applied in the clinical practice as well. They are not only appropriate for the evaluation of outcomes, judgement of adequacy and safety of care on systemic or institutional level, but also for the planning of individual patient care and supporting communication and co-operation. The present paper aims to provide general information and references for introducing the details. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(6): 215-222.