Association of Opioid and Concurrent Benzodiazepine, Skeletal Muscle Relaxant, and Gabapentinoid Usage on Healthcare Expenditure and Resource Utilization: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study, 2009 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers may be utilizing central nervous system (CNS) depressants to reduce opioid use due to recent changes in public policy. Combination use of these agents with opioids increases the risk of respiratory depression and death. Healthcare expenditures by individuals using these drug combinations have not been previously quantified. We sought to characterize healthcare costs and expenditures associated with a population reporting concurrent CNS depressants and opioid use compared with nonopioid analgesics in the United States from 2009 to 2019. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare the healthcare expenditures of adult Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents who were prescribed nonopioid analgesics, opioids only, opioids/benzodiazepines (BZD), opioids/BZD/skeletal muscle relaxants (SMR), or opioids/gabapentin (gaba) using pooled data from 2009 to 2019. Expenditure (cost and resource utilization) categories included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, and prescription medicine. Average marginal effects were used to compare survey-weighted annual costs and resource utilizations across the groups as compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: A weighted total of 34 241 838 individuals were identified. Most were opioid-only respondents (46.5%), followed by nonopioid analgesic (43.4%), opioid/BZD (5.3%), opioid-gaba (3.5%), and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents (1.3%). In comparison to the study groups with nonopioid analgesics, opioid-gaba users had the highest significant incremental cost difference among the different pairings (+$11 684, P < .001). Opioid-gaba, opioid/BZD, and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents had significantly higher inpatient, emergency department, and prescription drug costs and use compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents. Opioid-only respondents had higher outpatient and office-based costs and visits compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents. CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare providers seek to utilize fewer opioids for pain management, attention must be paid to ensuring safe and effective use of concurrent CNS depressants to mitigate high healthcare costs and burden.

Challenges in Pharmacovigilance: Variability in the Criteria for Determining Drug-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in Retrospective, Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Drug-associated acute kidney injury (D-AKI) accounts for 19-26% of acute kidney injury (AKI) events in hospitalized patients and results in outcomes similar to patients with AKI from other etiologies. Diagnosing D-AKI is complex and various criteria have been used. SUMMARY: To highlight the variability in D-AKI determination, a review was conducted between January 2017 and December 2022 using PubMed. Search terms included adaptations of "drug associated kidney injury" to identify a sampling of literature discussing definitions and criteria for D-AKI evaluation. The search yielded 291 articles that were uploaded to Rayyan, a software tool used to screen and select studies. Retrospective, observational electronic health record (EHR) studies conducted in hospitalized patients were included. The final sample contained 16 studies for data extraction, representing mostly adult populations (n = 13, 81.3%) in noncritical or unspecified inpatient settings (n = 12, 75%). Nine studies (56.3%) utilized the recommended Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcome guidelines (KDIGO) criteria to define AKI. Baseline creatinine or laboratory criteria for kidney function were provided in 10 studies (62.5%). Eleven studies (68.8%) established a temporal sequence assessment linking nephrotoxin drug exposure to an AKI event, but these criteria were inconsistent among studies using time frames as soon as 3 months prior to AKI. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the substantial variability in D-AKI criteria in select studies. Minimum expectations about what should be reported and criteria for the elements reported are needed to assure transparency, consistency, and standardization of pharmacovigilance strategies.

Assessing adverse drug reaction reports for antidiabetic medications approved by the food and drug administration between 2012 and 2017: a pharmacovigilance study.

Objective: Between 2012 and 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 10 antidiabetic indicated therapies. Due to the limited literature on voluntarily reported safety outcomes for recently approved antidiabetic drugs, this study investigated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Research Design and Methods: A disproportionality analysis of spontaneously reported ADRs was conducted. FAERS reports from January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2022 were compiled, allowing a 5-year buffer following drug approval in 2017. Reporting odds ratios were calculated for the top 10 ADRs, comparing new diabetic agents to the other approved drugs in their therapeutic class. Results: 127,525 reports were identified for newly approved antidiabetic medications listed as the primary suspect (PS). For sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, the odds of blood glucose increased, nausea, and dizziness being reported was greater for empagliflozin. Dapagliflozin was associated with greater reports of weight decreased. Canagliflozin was found to have a disproportionally higher number of reports for diabetic ketoacidosis, toe amputation, acute kidney injury, fungal infections, and osteomyelitis. Assessing glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dulaglutide and semaglutide were associated with greater reports of gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions. Exenatide was disproportionally associated with injection site reactions and pancreatic carcinoma reports. Conclusion: Pharmacovigilance studies utilizing a large publicly available dataset allow an essential opportunity to evaluate the safety profile of antidiabetic drugs utilized in clinical practice. Additional research is needed to evaluate these reported safety concerns for recently approved antidiabetic medications to determine causality.

Adverse drug reactions reported for antidiabetic medications Introduction: This study investigated the trends in voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions for recently approved antidiabetic medications. Methods: Data from the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System were evaluated. The top 10 adverse drug reactions were compared between antidiabetic medications in the same therapeutic class. Results: We identified 127,525 adverse drug reaction reports for the newer approved antidiabetic medications. For SGLT-2 inhibitors, empagliflozin was associated with greater reports of blood glucose increase, nausea, and dizziness; weight decreased was reported more often for dapagliflozin; and diabetic ketoacidosis, toe amputation, acute kidney injury, fungal infections, and osteomyelitis were reported more commonly for canagliflozin. Assessing GLP-1 receptor agonists, the odds of gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions being reported was greater for dulaglutide and semaglutide. Exenatide was disproportionally associated with injection site reactions and pancreatic carcinoma reports. Conclusion: Medication safety studies using a large publicly available dataset allows an essential opportunity to evaluate the safety profile of antidiabetic drugs in the real-world setting. Additional research is needed to determine if the reported safety concerns for recently approved antidiabetic medications to determine causality.

Expert Consensus on the Nephrotoxic Potential of 195 Medications in the Non-intensive Care Setting: A Modified Delphi Method.

INTRODUCTION: Nephrotoxin exposure is significantly associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) development. A standardized list of nephrotoxic medications to surveil and their perceived nephrotoxic potential (NxP) does not exist for non-critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: This study generated consensus on the nephrotoxic effect of 195 medications used in the non-intensive care setting. METHODS: Potentially nephrotoxic medications were identified through a comprehensive literature search, and 29 participants with nephrology or pharmacist expertise were identified. The primary outcome was NxP by consensus. Participants rated each drug on a scale of 0-3 (not nephrotoxic to definite nephrotoxicity). Group consensus was met if ≥ 75% of responses were one single rating or a combination of two consecutive ratings. If ≥ 50% of responses indicated "unknown" or not used in the non-intensive care setting, the medication was removed for consideration. Medications not meeting consensus for a given round were included in the subsequent round(s). RESULTS: A total of 191 medications were identified in the literature, with 4 medications added after the first round from participants' recommendations. NxP index rating consensus after three rounds was: 14 (7.2%) no NxP in almost all situations (rating 0); 62 (31.8%) unlikely/possibly nephrotoxic (rating 0.5); 21 (10.8%) possibly nephrotoxic (rating 1); 49 (25.1%) possibly/probably nephrotoxic (rating 1.5); 2 (1.0%) probably nephrotoxic (rating 2); 8 (4.1%) probably/definite nephrotoxic (rating 2.5); 0 (0.0%) definitely nephrotoxic (rating 3); and 39 (20.0%) medications were removed from consideration. CONCLUSIONS: NxP index rating provides clinical consensus on perceived nephrotoxic medications in the non-intensive care setting and homogeneity for future clinical evaluations and research.

A Pharmacovigilance Study of Adverse Drug Reactions Reported for Cardiovascular Disease Medications Approved Between 2012 and 2017 in the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database.

PURPOSE: Between 2012 and 2017, the FDA approved 29 therapies for a cardiovascular disease (CVD) indication. Due to the limited literature on patient safety outcomes for recently approved CVD medications, this study investigated adverse drug reports (ADRs) reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: A disproportionality analysis of spontaneously reported ADR was conducted. Reports in FAERS from Quarter 1, 2012, through Quarter 1, 2019, were compiled, allowing a 2-year buffer following drug approval in 2017. Top 10 reported ADRs and reporting odds ratios (ROR; confidence interval (CI)), a measure of disproportionality, were analyzed and compared to drugs available prior to 2012 as appropriate. RESULTS: Of 7,952,147 ADR reports, 95,016 (1.19%) consisted of reports for newly approved CVD medications. For oral anticoagulants, apixaban had significantly lower reports for anemia and renal failure compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban but greater reports for neurological signs/symptoms, and arrhythmias. Evaluating heart failure drugs, sacubitril/valsartan had greater reports for acute kidney injury, coughing, potassium imbalances, and renal impairment but notably, lower for angioedema compared to lisinopril. Assessing familial hypercholesterolemia drugs, alirocumab had greater reports for joint-related-signs/symptoms compared to other agents in this category. A newer pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment, selexipag, had greater reports of reporting for bone/joint-related-signs/symptoms but riociguat had greater reports for hemorrhages and vascular hypotension. CONCLUSION: Pharmacovigilance studies allow an essential opportunity to evaluate the safety profile of CVD medications in clinical practice. Additional research is needed to evaluate these reported safety concerns for recently approved CVD medications.

Trends in healthcare expenditures and resource utilization among a nationally representative population with opioids in the United States: a serial cross-sectional study, 2008 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports on healthcare costs and expenditures associated with populations prescribed an opioid primarily focused on populations who chronically use opioids or have opioid use disorder. However, studies that characterize the healthcare and expenditures costs among the wider number of people prescribed opioids in a nationally representative population are unavailable. We sought to characterize the healthcare costs and expenditures associated with a population prescribed an opioid in the U.S. from 2008 to 2017. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare the economic burden of adult household respondents who were prescribed and not prescribed an opioid using pooled data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) between 2008 and 2017. Respondents with an opioid prescription were matched to respondents without an opioid prescription using propensity score match methods with survey weights. Two-part generalized linear models were used to estimate the survey-weighted annual healthcare expenditures and resource utilization adjusting for multiple covariates. Additionally, 10-year trend comparisons between the groups were performed. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: There was a weighted total of 31,696,671 respondents with an opioid and 31,536,639 respondents without an opioid after propensity score matching. The sample had a mean (SD) age of 50.63 years (18.03), 58.9% females, and 81.6% Whites. Total annual economic burden among RPOs was $524 billion. Annual total expenditures per respondent with and without an opioid were $16,542 and $7067, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, adjusted prescription, outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient expenditures were significantly higher for respondents with an opioid compared to respondents without an opioid. Average annual increases in expenditures were significantly greater among respondents with an opioid compared to respondents without an opioid for total (+$185; 95% CI: $37-$334) and prescription (+$78; 95% CI: $28-$128) expenditures. There were no differences in the average annual trends for outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient expenditures between respondents with and without an opioid. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents with an opioid prescription had higher healthcare expenditures and resource utilization compared to respondents without an opioid prescription from 2008 to 2017. Specifically, significant annual increases were observed for total and prescription expenditures. Additionally, 10-year trends in total and prescription expenditures were higher among respondents with an opioid than respondents without an opioid.

Assessing Adverse Drug Reactions Reported for New Respiratory Medications in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database.

BACKGROUND: Between 2012 and 2017, 25 new medications or combination products were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treatment of chronic lower respiratory diseases (CLRDs). With limited data on post-marketing patient exposure to these drugs, their safety profiles remain unknown. This study aims to provide post-marketing surveillance of these medications. METHODS: A list of new CLRD medications approved between 2012 and 2017 was generated through searches on Drugs.com (https://www.drugs.com), FDA.gov (https://www.fda.gov), and IBM Micromedex (https://www.micromedexsolutions.com/home/dispatch/ssl/true). Data describing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were collected from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System for analysis. Of the 25 identified medications, we selected 4 medications indicated for asthma or COPD with at least 500 reports. Only ADRs catalogued with these medications as the primary suspect were analyzed. Reporting odds ratios were calculated for the top 10 ADRs of each CLRD medication. RESULTS: A total of 61,682 ADR reports were collected for newly approved CLRD medications (n = 27,190 older adults; n = 30,502 male). Reports of COPD medications (umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol) indicate that umeclidinium/vilanterol yielded a higher reporting odds ratio than umeclidinium alone for reports of pain. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol had higher reporting odds ratios for cough, pain, and dizziness than budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the incidence of different adverse events experienced by patients in post-marketing reports resembles the incidence reported in pre-marketing clinical trials for COPD medications, except for fluticasone furoate/vilanterol, which has several differences.

Automatically classifying the evidence type of drug-drug interaction research papers as a step toward computer supported evidence curation.

A longstanding issue with knowledge bases that discuss drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is that they are inconsistent with one another. Computerized support might help experts be more objective in assessing DDI evidence. A requirement for such systems is accurate automatic classification of evidence types. In this pilot study, we developed a hierarchical classifier to classify clinical DDI studies into formally defined evidence types. The area under the ROC curve for sub-classifiers in the ensemble ranged from 0.78 to 0.87. The entire system achieved an F1 of 0.83 and 0.63 on two held-out datasets, the latter consisting focused on completely novel drugs from what the system was trained on. The results suggest that it is feasible to accurately automate the classification of a sub-set of DDI evidence types and that the hierarchical approach shows promise. Future work will test more advanced feature engineering techniques while expanding the system to classify a more complex set of evidence types.

Identifying Common Methods Used by Drug Interaction Experts for Finding Evidence About Potential Drug-Drug Interactions: Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Preventing drug interactions is an important goal to maximize patient benefit from medications. Summarizing potential drug-drug interactions (PDDIs) for clinical decision support is challenging, and there is no single repository for PDDI evidence. Additionally, inconsistencies across compendia and other sources have been well documented. Standard search strategies for complete and current evidence about PDDIs have not heretofore been developed or validated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify common methods for conducting PDDI literature searches used by experts who routinely evaluate such evidence. METHODS: We invited a convenience sample of 70 drug information experts, including compendia editors, knowledge-base vendors, and clinicians, via emails to complete a survey on identifying PDDI evidence. We created a Web-based survey that included questions regarding the (1) development and conduct of searches; (2) resources used, for example, databases, compendia, search engines, etc; (3) types of keywords used to search for the specific PDDI information; (4) study types included and excluded in searches; and (5) search terms used. Search strategy questions focused on 6 topics of the PDDI information-(1) that a PDDI exists; (2) seriousness; (3) clinical consequences; (4) management options; (5) mechanism; and (6) health outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty participants (response rate, 20/70, 29%) completed the survey. The majority (17/20, 85%) were drug information specialists, drug interaction researchers, compendia editors, or clinical pharmacists, with 60% (12/20) having >10 years' experience. Over half (11/20, 55%) worked for clinical solutions vendors or knowledge-base vendors. Most participants developed (18/20, 90%) and conducted (19/20, 95%) search strategies without librarian assistance. PubMed (20/20, 100%) and Google Scholar (11/20, 55%) were most commonly searched for papers, followed by Google Web Search (7/20, 35%) and EMBASE (3/20, 15%). No respondents reported using Scopus. A variety of subscription and open-access databases were used, most commonly Lexicomp (9/20, 45%), Micromedex (8/20, 40%), Drugs@FDA (17/20, 85%), and DailyMed (13/20, 65%). Facts and Comparisons was the most commonly used compendia (8/20, 40%). Across the 6 attributes of interest, generic drug name was the most common keyword used. Respondents reported using more types of keywords when searching to identify the existence of PDDIs and determine their mechanism than when searching for the other 4 attributes (seriousness, consequences, management, and health outcomes). Regarding the types of evidence useful for evaluating a PDDI, clinical trials, case reports, and systematic reviews were considered relevant, while animal and in vitro data studies were not. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that drug interaction experts use various keyword strategies and various database and Web resources depending on the PDDI evidence they are seeking. Greater automation and standardization across search strategies could improve one's ability to identify PDDI evidence. Hence, future research focused on enhancing the existing search tools and designing recommended standards is needed.