GOLD assessment of COPD severity in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

PURPOSE: To evaluate availability of spirometry and symptom data in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (United Kingdom) to assess COPD severity using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2016 definition and comparing it with an algorithm used in other studies. METHODS: This was a descriptive, noninterventional, secondary database cohort study of patients with COPD aged 40 years or older, who initiated treatment with specific COPD medications. Patients were classified according to COPD severity (1) in GOLD 2016 "ABCD" categories based on symptoms (Medical Research Council dyspnea grade, COPD Assessment Test, breathlessness), percent predicted FEV1, and exacerbation history and (2) as mild, moderate, severe, or very severe based on treatment and exacerbation history. RESULTS: The study included 63 900 patients with COPD aged 40 years or older that were new users of 1 or more COPD medication of interest. Percent predicted FEV1 was available for 80.9% of patients; symptoms for 75.6% of patients. Classification into GOLD 2016 ABCD categories was possible for 75.6% of the patients. The GOLD 2016 ABCD definition classified more patients under the high-risk categories (22.1%, A; 18.8%, B; 21.3%, C; 37.9%, D) than did the adapted algorithm (7.9%, mild; 48.6%, moderate; 42.1%, severe; 1.4%, very severe). CONCLUSION: Using our adaptation of the GOLD 2016 COPD severity classification, the information in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink allowed us to ascertain COPD severity in approximately 75% of patients with COPD. Algorithms that include medication use tend to misclassify patients with the extreme COPD severity categories.

Validity of ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes used to identify acute liver injury: A study in three European data sources.

PURPOSE: Validating cases of acute liver injury (ALI) in health care data sources is challenging. Previous validation studies reported low positive predictive values (PPVs). METHODS: Case validation was undertaken in a study conducted from 2009 to 2014 assessing the risk of ALI in antidepressants users in databases in Spain (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and the Danish National Health Registers. Three ALI definitions were evaluated: primary (specific hospital discharge codes), secondary (specific and nonspecific hospital discharge codes), and tertiary (specific and nonspecific hospital and outpatient codes). The validation included review of patient profiles (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and of clinical data from medical records (EpiChron and Denmark). ALI cases were confirmed when liver enzyme values met a definition by an international working group. RESULTS: Overall PPVs (95% CIs) for the study ALI definitions were, for the primary ALI definition, 84% (60%-97%) (EpiChron), 60% (26%-88%) (SIDIAP), and 74% (60%-85%) (Denmark); for the secondary ALI definition, 65% (45%-81%) (EpiChron), 40% (19%-64%) (SIDIAP), and 70% (64%-77%) (Denmark); and for the tertiary ALI definition, 25% (18%-34%) (EpiChron), 8% (7%-9%) (SIDIAP), and 47% (42%-52%) (Denmark). The overall PPVs were higher for specific than for nonspecific codes and for hospital discharge than for outpatient codes. The nonspecific code "unspecified jaundice" had high PPVs in Denmark. CONCLUSIONS: PPVs obtained apply to patients using antidepressants without preexisting liver disease or ALI risk factors. To maximize validity, studies on ALI should prioritize hospital specific discharge codes and should include hospital codes for unspecified jaundice. Case validation is required when ALI outpatient cases are considered.

Effectiveness of risk minimization measures for the use of cilostazol in United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and Germany.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of risk minimization measures-labeling changes and communication to health care professionals-recommended by the European Medicines Agency for use of cilostazol for the treatment of intermittent claudication in Europe. METHODS: Observational study of cilostazol in The Health Improvement Network (United Kingdom), EpiChron Cohort (Spain), SIDIAP (Spain), Swedish National Databases, and GePaRD (Germany). Among new users of cilostazol, we compared the prevalence of conditions targeted by the risk minimization measures in the periods before (2002-2012) and after (2014) implementation. Conditions evaluated were prevalence of smoking, cardiovascular conditions, concurrent use of ≥2 antiplatelet agents, concurrent use of potent CYP3A4/CYP2C19 inhibitors and high-dose cilostazol, early monitoring of all users, and continuous monitoring of users at high cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: We included 22 593 and 1821 new users of cilostazol before and after implementation of risk minimization measures, respectively. After implementation, the frequency of several conditions related to the labeling changes improved in all the study populations: prevalence of use decreased between 13% (EpiChron) and 57% (SIDIAP), frequency of cardiovascular contraindications decreased between 8% (GePaRD) and 84% (EpiChron), and concurrent use of high-dose cilostazol and potent CYP3A4/CYP2C19 inhibitors decreased between 6% (Sweden) and 100% (EpiChron). The frequency of other conditions improved in most study populations, except smoking, which decreased only in EpiChron (48% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the risk minimization measures implemented by the EMA for the use of cilostazol have been effective in all European countries studied, except for smoking cessation before initiating cilostazol, which remains an area of improvement.

Characterization of new users of cilostazol in the UK, Spain, Sweden, and Germany.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of new users of cilostazol in Europe with the aim to support the evaluation of its benefit/risk as used in regular clinical practice before the implementation of labeling changes recommended by the European Medicines Agency. METHODS: New users of cilostazol were identified in populations enrolled in five European health automated databases in the UK (The Health Improvement Network [THIN]), Spain (EpiChron cohort and Information System for the Improvement of Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]), Sweden (National Registers), and Germany (German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database [GePaRD]) between 2002 and 2012. New users were characterized according to the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities, concurrent use of interacting medications, new contraindications, duration of use, and potential off-label prescribing. RESULTS: We identified 22 593 new users of cilostazol. The median age was between 68.0 (THIN) and 73.7 (Sweden) years. More than 78% of users had concomitant cardiovascular disease, and between 78.8% (GePaRD) and 91.6% (THIN) were treated with interacting medications. Prevalence of new cardiovascular contraindications ranged from 1.5% (THIN) to 11.6% (GePaRD), and concurrent use of two or more antiplatelet drugs ranged from 6.3% (SIDIAP) to 13.5% (EpiChron cohort). Between 39.4% (Sweden) and 52.9% (THIN) of users discontinued cilostazol in the first 3 months. Between 41.0% (SIDIAP) and 93.4% (THIN) were considered to have received cilostazol according to the European Medicines Agency labeling. CONCLUSIONS: In this collaborative European study, most cilostazol users were elderly patients with a high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and other comorbidity and concurrent use of interacting drugs, indicating that this is a vulnerable population at high risk of complications, especially cardiovascular events. © 2017 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Risk of upper gastrointestinal complications in a cohort of users of nimesulide and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy.

PURPOSE: Information on the risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (UGIC) in users of nimesulide, the most used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in Italy, is scarce. In the context of the European regulatory review on nimesulide, we estimated and compared the risk associated with nimesulide and other individual NSAIDs with the risk in nonusers. METHODS: We used 2001-2008 data from regional health databases in Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG), Italy, to conduct a cohort and nested case-control study of users of NSAIDs. Cases were identified by specific and nonspecific hospital discharge diagnoses in primary and secondary position and validated through hospital records. Ten controls per case were selected using density-based sampling from the cohort. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The cohort included 588,827 NSAIDs users and 3031 UGIC cases. Nonspecific codes contributed to 23% of cases and secondary codes to 5%. Among current users, IR per 1000 person-years decreased from 4.45 cases in 2001 to 2.21 cases in 2008. The RR (95%CI) for current use of NSAIDs was 3.28 (2.86, 3.76). RR was <2 for rofecoxib, celecoxib, and nimesulide; 2 to <5 for naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, etoricoxib, and meloxicam; and ≥ 5 for ketoprofen, piroxicam, and ketorolac. CONCLUSIONS: IRs of UGIC in FVG decreased about 50% between 2001 and 2008. Nimesulide was in the low-medium range of RR. A complete ascertainment of UGIC cases in databases may require validation of nonspecific codes, secondary codes, and additional codes such as peritonitis and acute posthemorrhagic anemia.

Myocardial infarction and individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with use of individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: A search of Medline (PubMed) for observational studies published from 1990 to 2011 identified 3829 articles; 31 reported relative risk (RR) of AMI with use of individual NSAIDs versus nonuse of NSAIDs. Information abstracted in a standardized form from 25 publications was used for the meta-analysis on 18 independent study populations. RESULTS: Random-effects RR (95% confidence interval (CI)) was lowest for naproxen 1.06 (0.94­1.20), followed by celecoxib 1.12 (1.00­1.24), ibuprofen 1.14 (0.98­1.31), meloxicam 1.25 (1.04­1.49), rofecoxib 1.34 (1.22­1.48), diclofenac 1.38 (1.26­1.52), indometacin 1.40 (1.21­1.62), etodolac 1.55 (1.16­2.06), and etoricoxib 1.97 (1.35­2.89). Heterogeneity between studies was present. For new users, RRs (95% CIs) were for naproxen, 0.85 (0.73­1.00); ibuprofen, 1.20 (0.97­1.48); celecoxib, 1.23 (1.00­1.52); diclofenac, 1.41 (1.08­1.86); and rofecoxib, 1.43 (1.21­1.66).Except for naproxen, higher risk was generally associated with higher doses, as defined in each study, overall and in patients with prior coronary heart disease. Low and high doses of diclofenac and rofecoxib were associated with high risk of AMI, with dose­response relationship for rofecoxib. In patients with prior coronary heart disease, except for naproxen, duration of use ≤3 months was associated with an increased risk of AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Most frequently NSAIDs used in clinical practice, except naproxen, are associated with an increased risk of AMI at high doses or in persons with diagnosed coronary heart disease. For diclofenac and rofecoxib, the risk was increased at low and high doses.

Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes for upper gastrointestinal complications varied by position and age: a validation study in a cohort of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs users in Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy.

PURPOSE: To validate the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification discharge codes used to identify cases of upper gastrointestinal complications (UGICs) in hospitals of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy. METHODS: Cohort study on the risk of UGIC in users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs conducted in Friuli Venezia Giulia between 2001 and 2008. Cases were identified through primary and secondary International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision Clinical specific codes 531 (gastric ulcer), 532 (duodenal ulcer), 533 (peptic ulcer), 534 (gastrojejunal ulcer), and nonspecific code 578 (gastrointestinal hemorrhage). Potential cases were confirmed through hospital chart review. RESULTS: The chart retrieval percentage was 98.4%.The positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.3% for primary codes 531 and 532, 79.5% for code 533, 83.1% for code 534, 40.2% for code 578. The PPV for secondary codes was 34.7% but increased to 88.9% and 79.2% when the primary code was for peritonitis or acute post-hemorrhagic anemia, respectively. Validation of secondary codes increased case ascertainment by 4.9%. Endoscopy confirmed 79.4% of cases but only 67.2% of those above age 84 years. CONCLUSIONS: The PPV was high for specific primary codes and moderate to low for nonspecific primary and secondary codes. The inclusion of confirmed cases identified by nonspecific and secondary codes can be of value in studies that need a complete ascertainment of cases occurring in the study population. In this cohort, not including these cases would underestimate the incidence of UGICs. A potential for case misclassification exists in particular in eldest ages.

Stroke risk and NSAIDs: a systematic review of observational studies.

AIMS: To perform a quantitative systematic review of observational studies on the risk of stroke associated with the use of individual NSAIDs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Searches were conducted using the Medline database within PubMed (1990-2008). Observational cohort or case-control studies were eligible if reported on the risk of cardiovascular events associated with individual NSAIDs versus the nonuse of NSAIDs. We found 3193 articles, in which 75 were eligible for review and abstraction. Of the 75 articles, 6 reported relative risk (RR) of stroke. Data were abstracted into a database using a standardized entry form. Two authors assessed study quality, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The pooled RR of all subtypes of incident stroke was increased with the current use of rofecoxib (RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.15-2.33) and diclofenac (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.08-1.48). The pooled estimates for naproxen, ibuprofen, and celecoxib were close to unity. The risk of ischemic stroke was also increased with rofecoxib (RR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.09-3.04) and diclofenac (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.99-1.45). Data were inadequate to estimate the pooled RR by dose and duration, for other individual NSAIDs or nonischemic stroke subtypes. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports an increased risk of ischemic stroke with the current use of rofecoxib and diclofenac. Additional studies are required to evaluate most individual NSAIDS, the effect of dose and duration, and the subtypes of stroke.

Use of long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled steroids in asthma: meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Current asthma guidelines recommend the use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for long-term control and prevention of symptoms in persistent asthma. Data on the risk of asthma exacerbations of LABAs in combination with ICSs, as prescribed in typical clinical practice, are very scarce. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies to examine the risk of asthma exacerbations, measured as asthma-related hospitalization and/or asthma-related emergency room (ER) visits, in adults receiving LABAs plus ICSs in a fixed-dose combination compared with patients receiving ICSs alone. RESULTS: Seven studies, all retrospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, representing approximately 96,000 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that the use of ICSs plus LABAs was associated with a lower risk of asthma-related hospitalizations and/or ER visits than ICSs alone (odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.94). Sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity of endpoint definition, duration of follow-up, and patient characteristics did not significantly alter the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic meta-analysis suggests that patients in clinical practice treated with a single inhaler containing ICSs plus LABAs experience fewer asthma exacerbations than similar patients treated with ICSs alone.

The use of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and the risk of acute myocardial infarction in Saskatchewan, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of observational studies show variability in the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with an increase in risk for rofecoxib and diclofenac, and no increase in risk for celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 364 658 individuals aged 40-84 years who were enrolled in Saskatchewan Health, Canada, from 15 November 1999 to 31 December 2001. A nested case-control analysis compared 3252 incident cases of hospitalized AMI and out-of-hospital CHD deaths with 20 002 controls randomly sampled from the cohort. The incidence of AMI/CHD was 5.1 per 1000 person-years (95%CI: 5.0-5.3). The adjusted ORs (95%CI) of AMI/CHD in current users of individual NSAIDs compared with non-use were: celecoxib (1.11; 0.84-1.47), rofecoxib (1.32; 0.91-1.91), diclofenac (1.02; 0.75-1.38), naproxen (1.57; 0.98-2.52), ibuprofen (1.59; 0.88-2.89), and indomethacin (1.34; 0.81-2.19). Long-term use of rofecoxib was compatible with an increased risk (OR = 1.46; 0.97-2.22) while estimates of other individual NSAIDs were close to unity. Overall NSAID use was associated with a 30% increased risk of nonfatal AMI but was absent for fatal AMI/CHD. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a modest increased risk of AMI/CHD with various traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Confidence intervals of estimated ORs included the null value for most comparisons. The study confirmed that the differentiation between traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors is not a reliable tool for predicting cardiovascular risk associated with NSAIDs.

Use of aclidinium did not increase the risk of death in a noninterventional cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Aclidinium bromide is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Although the initial potential increased cardiovascular and mortality risk among users of tiotropium has been ruled out by several observational studies, and clinical trials, there are still concerns related to the use of newer LAMA medications. The current study aimed to evaluate the risk of death among users of aclidinium and other LAMAs. METHODS: We conducted a cohort and nested case-control study among patients with COPD aged 40 years or older to compare the risk of all-cause mortality among users of aclidinium and other COPD medications with the risk among users of long-acting ß2 agonists (LABA), in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the United Kingdom (2012-2017). RESULTS: Mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 32.9 for aclidinium, 43.8 for tiotropium, 38.0 for other LAMA, 47.1 for LABA/ICS, and 38.1 for LABA. The RR of death compared with current use of LABA was 0.54 (confidence interval [95% CI], 0.40-0.72) for aclidinium, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76-1.21) for tiotropium, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-0.99) for other LAMA, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.90-1.31) for LABA/ICS. Decreased risk for death observed among users of aclidinium was driven by overall current single use (RR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79), which corresponded to 26% of the aclidinium users (<15 cases) and not by multiple use (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71-1.48). CONCLUSION: Use of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMA, or LABA/ICS was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality as compared with the use of LABAs.

Risk of Acute Liver Injury in Agomelatine and Other Antidepressant Users in Four European Countries: A Cohort and Nested Case-Control Study Using Automated Health Data Sources.

BACKGROUND: Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome). OBJECTIVE: The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice. METHOD: A nested case-control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009-2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined. RESULTS: We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13-1.71). Results were also < 1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19-0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20-1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05-3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50-1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise. CONCLUSION: In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results.

Hospitalization for peptic ulcer and bleeding in users of selective COX-2 inhibitors and nonselective NSAIDs with special reference to celecoxib.

PURPOSE: To assess the relative incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding and perforation (PUBP) in users of selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study based on insurance claims, with chart review to confirm cases. The base population consisted of 2.2 million adult users of celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, rofecoxib, or valdecoxib who were covered by commercial health insurance in the United States from 1999-2003. For 790 persons hospitalized for PUBP and 7887 controls, most recent NSAID/COX-2 use and a variety of medical and pharmacy risk factors were ascertained from the insurance files and analyzed by conditional logistic regression. The main outcome measure was the odds ratio (OR) associated with use of each drug by comparison to naproxen, and in successive intervals after last dispensing. RESULTS: Hospitalization for PUBP was highest from the date of NSAID/COX-2 dispensing through the end of an exposure period that corresponded to the days supply; the rate dropped steadily thereafter. The covariate-adjusted ORs by comparison to naproxen were: ibuprofen 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 1.09), rofecoxib 0.79 (0.62, 1.02), diclofenac 0.66 (0.47, 0.94), valdecoxib 0.50 (0.26, 0.97), and celecoxib 0.45 (0.35, 0.58). The nonselective NSAIDs had an OR for PUBP of 1.51 (1.26, 1.98) compared to the selective COX-2 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Nonselective NSAIDs convey half again as much risk of hospitalization for PUBP as do COX-2 inhibitors. Celecoxib users had about half the hospitalization rate of users of naproxen.

Positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes 410 and 411 in the identification of cases of acute coronary syndromes in the Saskatchewan Hospital automated database.

BACKGROUND: Case definitions are essential to epidemiological research. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate ICD-9 codes 410 and 411 to identify cases of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), and the clinical information availability in the administrative and hospital discharge records of Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: In the context of a safety cohort study, we identified hospitalisations with primary discharge codes 410 (2260) and 411 (799). We selected all records with code 411, and a random sample (200) with code 410. Based on information obtained by trained abstractors from hospital records, events were classified by two cardiologists as definite or possible according to adapted AHA/ESC criteria. The validity of 410 and 411 codes was assessed by calculating the positive predictive value (PPV). Completeness of the recorded information on risk factors and use of aspirin was explored. RESULTS: The PPVs of the codes 410 and 411 for ACS were 0.96 (95%CI: 0. 92-0.98) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.83-0.88), respectively. The PPV of 410 for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.91-0.98). The PPV of 411 was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.70-0.77) for primary unstable angina (UA) and 0.09 (95%CI: 0.07-0.11) for AMI. Hospital charts review revealed key information for clinical variables, smoking, obesity and use of aspirin at admission. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-9 410 code has high PPV for AMI cases, likewise 411 for UA cases. Case validation remains important in epidemiological studies with administrative health databases. Given the pathophysiology of ACS, both AMI and UA might be used as study end points. In addition to code 410, we recommend the use of 411 plus validation.

A cohort study on the risk of lymphoma and skin cancer in users of topical tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, and corticosteroids (Joint European Longitudinal Lymphoma and Skin Cancer Evaluation - JOELLE study).

BACKGROUND: There is a concern that topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, indicated for second-line treatment of atopic dermatitis, may increase the risk of lymphoma and skin cancer, particularly in children. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare incidence rates (IRs) of lymphoma and skin cancer between new users of topical tacrolimus or pimecrolimus and users of moderate- to high-potency topical corticosteroids (TCSs) and untreated subjects. METHODS: This is a multicenter cohort study with frequency matching by strata of propensity scores in population databases in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and the UK. IR ratios (IRRs) were estimated using Mantel-Haenszel methods for stratified analysis. RESULTS: We included 19,948 children and 66,127 adults initiating tacrolimus, 23,840 children and 37,417 adults initiating pimecrolimus, 584,121 users of TCSs, and 257,074 untreated subjects. IRs of lymphoma per 100,000 person-years were 10.4 events in children and 41.0 events in adults using tacrolimus and 3.0 events in children and 27.0 events in adults using pimecrolimus. The IRR (95% confidence interval [CI]) for lymphoma, tacrolimus versus TCSs, was 3.74 (1.00-14.06) in children and 1.27 (0.94-1.71) in adults. By lymphoma type, the highest IRR was 3.17 (0.58-17.23) for Hodgkin lymphoma in children and 1.76 (95% CI, 0.81-3.79) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in adults. For pimecrolimus versus TCSs, the highest IRR was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.33-5.14) for CTCL in adults. Compared with untreated subjects, adults using TCSs had a higher incidence of CTCL (IRR, 10.66; 95% CI, 2.60-43.75). Smaller associations were found between tacrolimus and pimecrolimus use and the risk of malignant melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer. CONCLUSION: Use of topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus was associated with an increased risk of lymphoma. The low IRs imply that even if the increased risk is causal, it represents a small excess risk for individual patients. Residual confounding by severity of atopic dermatitis, increased monitoring of severe patients, and reverse causation could have affected the results.

Risk of acute myocardial infarction during use of individual NSAIDs: A nested case-control study from the SOS project.

BACKGROUND: Use of selective COX-2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (coxibs) has been associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the risk of AMI has only been studied for very few NSAIDs that are frequently used. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of AMI for individual NSAIDs. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed from a cohort of new NSAID users ≥18 years (1999-2011) matching cases to a maximum of 100 controls on database, sex, age, and calendar time. Data were retrieved from six healthcare databases. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of current use of individual NSAIDs compared to past use were estimated per database. Pooling was done by two-stage pooling using a random effects model (ORmeta) and by one-stage pooling (ORpool). RESULTS: Among 8.5 million new NSAID users, 79,553 AMI cases were identified. The risk was elevated for current use of ketorolac (ORmeta 2.06;95%CI 1.83-2.32, ORpool 1.80; 1.49-2.18) followed, in descending order of point estimate, by indometacin, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, diclofenac, fixed combination of diclofenac with misoprostol, piroxicam, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, meloxicam, nimesulide and ketoprofen (ORmeta 1.12; 1.03-1.22, ORpool 1.00;0.86-1.16). Higher doses showed higher risk estimates than lower doses. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk estimates of AMI differed slightly between 28 individual NSAIDs. The relative risk was highest for ketorolac and was correlated with COX-2 potency, but not restricted to coxibs.

Use of Topical Tacrolimus and Topical Pimecrolimus in Four European Countries: A Multicentre Database Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the concerns about a potential increased risk of skin cancer and lymphoma with the use of topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, no population-based studies have given an overview of the use of these drugs in Europe. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus in children and adults in Europe. METHODS: Multicentre database cohort study comprising data from the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and the UK. We analysed users of topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus starting from the date of first availability (between 2002 and 2003) or start establishment of the prescription database in Sweden (2006) through 2011. Use was assessed separately for children (≤ 18 years) and adults. RESULTS: 32,052 children and 104,902 adults were treated with topical tacrolimus, and 32,125 children and 58,280 adults were treated with topical pimecrolimus. The number of users increased rapidly after first availability, especially for topical tacrolimus. Topical tacrolimus was more frequently used in all countries except Denmark. For both drugs, there was a decrease in users after 2004 in the Netherlands and Denmark and after 2005 in the UK, especially among children. This decrease was largest in Denmark. The decrease in the number of users was temporary for topical tacrolimus, while use remained relatively low for topical pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The number of topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus users increased rapidly after regulatory approval. A transient reduction in topical tacrolimus use and a persistent reduction in topical pimecrolimus use was seen after 2004 in the Netherlands and Denmark and after 2005 in the UK.

Use of oral corticosteroids and the risk of acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: A few epidemiological studies suggested an increased coronary heart disease (CHD) risk with high doses of oral corticosteroids. METHODS: We performed a cohort study with nested case-control analysis to estimate the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) associated with the use of oral corticosteroids by dose and duration. We followed-up 404,183 persons, 50-84 years old, without cancer from the general UK population. After validation of a random sample (confirmation rate of 96%), we included 4795 hospitalised cases of AMI or CHD deaths. We randomly sampled 20,000 controls, frequency matched by sex, age and calendar year. Relative risks were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The adjusted OR for AMI in current users of oral corticosteroids compared to non-users was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.17-1.72). The risk during the first 30 days of use (OR=2.24; 95% CI: 1.56-3.20) was greater than with longer duration (OR=1.22; 95% CI 0.98-1.52). The risk was more pronounced (OR=2.15; 95% CI 1.45-3.14) among users of prednisolone equivalent doses >10mg/day. The dose effect was observed both among patients with and without CHD or COPD/asthma. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a small increased risk of AMI with oral corticosteroid use with a greater risk observed among users of high corticosteroid dose.

Hepatic disorders in patients treated with COX-2 selective inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs: a case/noncase analysis of spontaneous reports.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic adverse events associated with the use of nonaspirin drugs and NSAIDs are uncommon, but the widespread use of these drugs may impact public health. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a case/noncase analysis of spontaneous reports to compare the hepatic safety profile of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitors with that of nonselective NSAIDs. METHODS: This case/noncase analysis was conducted using the US Food and Drug Administration Freedom of Information (FDA/FOI) database (through quarter 1, 2003) and the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO/UMC) database (through quarter 3, 2003). Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences and WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology preferred terms were used to classify hepatic disorders with broad and specific case definitions. After reports involving established hepatotoxic drugs (bromfenac, nimesulide, sulindac) were excluded, the proportion of reports (PRs) of each case definition was calculated for each NSAID. Crude and adjusted reporting odds ratios (RORs) were used to compare the overall proportions of hepatic disorders and hepatic failure of celecoxib and rofecoxib versus nonselective NSAIDs. RESULTS: A total of 158,539 and 185,253 reports of NSAIDs were identified in the FDA/FOI and WHO/UMC databases and 25% and 16%, respectively, involved other hepatotoxic drugs. The PRs of hepatic disorders for all COX-2 selective inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs were 3.0% in the FDA/FOI database and 2.7% in the WHO/UMC database. In the FDA/FOI and WHO/UMC databases, respectively, mmesulide (16.7% and 14.4%), bromfenac (12.0% and 20.7%), diclofenac (8.1% and 4.7%), and sulindac (6.1 % and 9.9%) were reported to be associated with higher proportions of overall hepatic disorders compared with those of other NSAIDs. Crude and adjusted RORs for the prevalences of overall hepatic disorders and hepatic failure with celecoxib and rofecoxib versus the other NSAIDs were <1 (indicating that the proportion was not higher than that of the comparator) in both databases. The interpretation of the results was unchanged when bromfenac, nimesulide, and sulindac were excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this case/noncase analysis, bromfenac, nimesulide, sulindac, and diclofenac had higher proportions of reports of hepatic disorders compared with those of other NSAIDs in the FDA/FOI and WHO/UMC databases. The analysis did not raise a safety concern for celecoxib or rofecoxib versus NSAIDs for overall hepatic disorders and hepatic failure.