Suicide and Intentional Self-harm Among Older Men Treated With 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitor or Alpha-blockers for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of intentional self-harm (ISH) and suicide in older men using 5-α reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) and alpha-blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Observational research of older men with BPH suggested an increase in ISH with 5-ARI use compared with nonuse; we aimed to address potential confounding by indication with an active comparator reference group. METHODS: Using Medicare data linked to the National Death Index (NDI) from 2007-2016, we implemented a retrospective cohort design in males aged ≥65 years who initiated 5-ARI or alpha-blocker use for BPH. ISH was identified using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. Suicides were identified through cause-of-death information from the NDI. We used inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox proportional hazards regression to compare time-to-event between treatment groups, with robust variance estimation. RESULTS: The event rates for ISH and suicide, respectively, were 0.314 and 0.308 per 1000 person-years (PY) among 5-ARI users (n = 181,675), and 0.364 and 0.382 per 1000PY among alpha-blocker users (n = 850,476). For 5-ARI use relative to alpha-blocker use, hazard ratios (HRs) for ISH and suicide, respectively, were 0.88 (95% CI:0.62-1.25) and 0.82 (95% CI:0.54-1.24); for the composite outcome (non-fatal ISH or suicide), the HR was 0.88 (95% CI:0.66-1.16). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses supported these results. CONCLUSION: 5-ARI use was not associated with an increased risk for ISH or suicide compared to alpha-blocker use in older men with BPH. Study limitations included low event rates and potentially low sensitivity for ISH events.

Dispensing pharmacy chains and direct anticoagulants: Potential associations with patient outcomes.

PURPOSE: Pharmacy chains can differ with respect to the characteristics of their patient populations as well as their nonprescription products, services, and practices, and thus may serve as a surrogate for potential unmeasured confounding in observational studies of prescription drugs. This study evaluates whether a single-source drug can have different patient outcomes based on the dispensing pharmacy chain. METHODS: Separate analyses for two anticoagulant drugs, rivaroxaban and apixaban, were conducted using Medicare Fee-for-Service claims evaluating the association between dispensing pharmacy chain and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, all-cause mortality, and major GI bleeding. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline covariates across pharmacy chain cohorts, and outcome association was assessed with a Cox Proportional Hazards model. RESULTS: We observed no differences in outcomes across pharmacy chains for apixaban recipients. Rivaroxaban recipients from pharmacy chain C, however, had lower rates of GI bleeding (adjusted HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69-1.00) and ischemic stroke (adjusted HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.87) as compared to chain A in primary analyses with a 3-day grace period. The results moved closer to the null when 14- and 30-day grace periods were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that dispensing pharmacy chains may have the potential to act as a confounder of associations between drug exposure and outcome in some observational studies. Additional studies of potential confounding by pharmacy chain are needed. Further evaluation of potential pharmacy chain effects on safe use would be of value.

Idelalisib for Treatment of Relapsed Follicular Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Comparison of Treatment Outcomes in Clinical Trial Participants vs Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Idelalisib (IDEL) is approved as monotherapy in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) and with rituximab (IDEL+R) for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Toxic effects can be severe and treatment-limiting. Outcomes in a real-world population are not yet characterized. Objective: We compared IDEL treatment outcomes in the clinical setting with outcomes in clinical trial data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared clinical trial participants treated with IDEL, aged 65 years or older, in studies 101-09 and 312-0116 with Medicare beneficiaries treated with IDEL of the same disease state and treatment regimen. Study 101-09 was a phase 2, single-group, open-label trial supporting accelerated approval of IDEL for relapsed or refractory FL. Study 312-0116 was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial supporting approval of IDEL+R for relapsed CLL. Analyses were conducted between February and December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment duration, on-treatment and overall mortality, and serious and fatal infections were compared between trial participants and Medicare beneficiaries. Cox proportional hazards models quantified differences by cohort. Results: We identified 26 trial participants (mean [SD] age, 73 [4.9] years; 12 [46.2%] women) and 305 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76 [6.9] years; 103 [54.8%] women) receiving IDEL for FL and 89 trial participants (mean [SD] age, 74 [6.0] years; 30 [33.7%] women) and 294 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 76 [6.3] years; 111 [37.8%] women) receiving IDEL+R for CLL. Medicare beneficiaries were older with higher comorbidity; had a shorter median treatment duration for CLL (173 days vs 473 days, P < .001) but not FL (114, days vs 160 days, P = .38); a numerically higher mortality rate (CLL: HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.93-2.11; FL: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.69-2.78); and a significantly higher fatal infection rate per 100 person-years for CLL (18.4 vs 9.8, P = .04) and a numerically higher rate for FL (27.6 vs 18.6, P = .54), compared with trial participants. Trial participants had approximately twice as many dose reductions (CLL: 32.6% vs 18.0%; P = .003; FL: 38.5% vs 16.1%; P = .02). Among Medicare beneficiaries, a hospitalized infection within 6 months prior to IDEL initiation was associated with a 2.11-fold increased risk for on-treatment fatal infections (95% CI, 1.44-3.10). Despite a March 2016 recommendation for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis in patients treated with IDEL, prophylaxis rates were low after March 2016 (FL: 25%, CLL: 37%). Conclusions and Relevance: We observed substantial imbalances in baseline comorbidities and treatment outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries and trial participants aged 65 years or older. Immunosuppression-related toxic effects, including infections, may have been somewhat reduced in trials by more frequent dose reductions and exclusion of patients with ongoing infections. Selective eligibility criteria and closer monitoring of trial patients may be responsible for limited generalizability of trial data to clinical practice.

Healthy User Bias in Comparative Safety Studies for Brand-Name vs. Generic Products: The Example of Warfarin.

Warfarin was selected as a case study to examine confounding when comparing a product across different manufacturers because it is a narrow therapeutic index drug with prevalent beliefs for brand-name superiority. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with atrial fibrillation and an incident outpatient warfarin prescription from July 2006 through July 2015 were included in the study population (N = 746,098). Substantial imbalances were observed between brand-name warfarin and generics for (i) clinical comorbidity, (ii) socioeconomic status, (iii) prescriber specialty, (iv) recent ambulatory and emergent care, (v) drug adherence, (vi) pharmacy setting (e.g., retail, mail-order), and (vii) risk scores for bleeding and thrombosis. Patients receiving brand-name warfarin were healthier than patients receiving generic manufactured warfarin. Utilization of generic warfarin products also differed by geographic region and pharmacy setting. Manufacturer-level comparative-safety studies for causal inference should carefully consider the presence of these imbalances and their potential for introducing healthy user bias.

Superconducting-Gravimeter Tests of Local Lorentz Invariance.

Superconducting-gravimeter measurements are used to test the local Lorentz invariance of the gravitational interaction and of matter-gravity couplings. The best laboratory sensitivities to date are achieved via a maximum-reach analysis for 13 Lorentz-violating operators, with some improvements exceeding an order of magnitude.