Association between prolactin increasing antipsychotic use and the risk of breast cancer: a retrospective observational cohort study in a United States Medicaid population.

Introduction: Results of retrospective studies examining the relationship between prolactin increasing antipsychotics and incident breast cancer have been inconsistent. This study assessed the association between use of high prolactin increasing antipsychotics (HPD) and the incidence of breast cancer using best practices in pharmacoepidemiology. Methods: Using administrative claims data from the MarketScan Medicaid database, schizophrenia patients initiating antipsychotics were identified. Those initiating HPD were compared with new users of non/low prolactin increasing drugs (NPD). Two definitions of breast cancer, two at-risk periods, and two large-scale propensity score (PS) adjustment methods were used in separate analyses. PS models included all previously diagnosed conditions, medication use, demographics, and other available medical history. Negative control outcomes were used for empirical calibration. Results: Five analysis variants passed all diagnostics for sufficient statistical power and balance across all covariates. Four of the five variants used an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach. Between 4,256 and 6,341 patients were included in each group for the ITT analyses, and patients contributed approximately four years of follow-up time on average. There was no statistically significant association between exposure to HPD and risk of incident breast cancer in any analysis, and hazard ratios remained close to 1.0, ranging from 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.62 - 1.48) to 1.28 (0.40 - 4.07). Discussion: Using multiple PS methods, outcome definitions and at-risk periods provided robust and consistent results which found no evidence of an association between use of HPD and risk of breast cancer.

Patterns of Comorbidities and Prescribing and Dispensing of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Among Patients with Osteoarthritis in the USA: Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of chronic pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are analgesics commonly used for musculoskeletal pain; however, NSAIDs can increase the risk of certain adverse events, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, edema, heart failure, and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize existing comorbidities among patients with OA. For patients with OA with and without a coexisting medical condition of interest (CMCOI), we estimated the prevalence of prescribing and dispensing NSAIDs pre-OA and post-OA diagnosis. METHODS: Data from three large administrative claims databases were used to construct an OA retrospective cohort. Databases leveraged were IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Database (MDCR), IBM MarketScan Commercial Database (CCAE), and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (Optum CDM). The OA study population was defined to be those patients who had an OA diagnosis from an inpatient or outpatient visit with at least 365 days of prior observation time in the database during January 2000 through May 2021. Asthma, cardiovascular disorders, renal impairment, and gastrointestinal bleeding risks were the CMCOI of interest. Patients with OA were then classified as having or not having evidence of a CMCOI. For both groups, NSAID dispensing patterns pre-OA and post-OA diagnosis were identified. Descriptive analysis was performed within the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics framework. RESULTS: In each database, the proportion of the OA population with at least one CMCOI was nearly 50% or more (48.0% CCAE; 74.4% MDCR; 68.6% Optum CDM). Cardiovascular disease was the most commonly observed CMCOI in each database, and in two databases, nearly one in four patients with OA had two or more CMCOI (23.2% MDCR; 22.6% Optum CDM). Among the OA population with CMCOI, NSAID utilization post-OA diagnosis ranged from 33.0 to 46.2%. Following diagnosis of OA, an increase in the prescribing and dispensing of NSAIDs was observed in all databases, regardless of patient CMCOI presence. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence of the pattern of prescribing and dispensing of NSAIDs among patients with OA with and without CMCOI, which indicates that at least half of patients with OA in the USA have a coexisting condition. These conditions may increase the risk of side effects commonly associated with NSAIDs. Yet, at least 32% of these patients were prescribed and dispensed NSAIDs. These data support the importance of shared decision making between healthcare professionals and patients when considering NSAIDs for the treatment of OA in patients with NSAID-relevant coexisting medical conditions.

Similar Risk of Kidney Failure among Patients with Blinding Diseases Who Receive Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Bevacizumab: An Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Network Study.

PURPOSE: To characterize the incidence of kidney failure associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF exposure; and compare the risk of kidney failure in patients treated with ranibizumab, aflibercept, or bevacizumab. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study across 12 databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) network. SUBJECTS: Subjects aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 3 monthly intravitreal anti-VEGF medications for a blinding disease (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, exudative age-related macular degeneration, or retinal vein occlusion). METHODS: The standardized incidence proportions and rates of kidney failure while on treatment with anti-VEGF were calculated. For each comparison (e.g., aflibercept versus ranibizumab), patients from each group were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of kidney failure while on treatment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to combine each database's hazard ratio (HR) estimate into a single network-wide estimate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of kidney failure while on anti-VEGF treatment, and time from cohort entry to kidney failure. RESULTS: Of the 6.1 million patients with blinding diseases, 37 189 who received ranibizumab, 39 447 aflibercept, and 163 611 bevacizumab were included; the total treatment exposure time was 161 724 person-years. The average standardized incidence proportion of kidney failure was 678 per 100 000 persons (range, 0-2389), and incidence rate 742 per 100 000 person-years (range, 0-2661). The meta-analysis HR of kidney failure comparing aflibercept with ranibizumab was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.47; P = 0.45), ranibizumab with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.68-1.32; P = 0.62), and aflibercept with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.65-1.39; P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: There was no substantially different relative risk of kidney failure between those who received ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or aflibercept. Practicing ophthalmologists and nephrologists should be aware of the risk of kidney failure among patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF medications and that there is little empirical evidence to preferentially choose among the specific intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.