Multivariable confounding adjustment in distributed data networks without sharing of patient-level data.

PURPOSE: It is increasingly necessary to analyze data from multiple sources when conducting public health safety surveillance or comparative effectiveness research. However, security, privacy, proprietary, and legal concerns often reduce data holders' willingness to share highly granular information. We describe and compare two approaches that do not require sharing of patient-level information to adjust for confounding in multi-site studies. METHODS: We estimated the risks of angioedema associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and aliskiren in comparison with beta-blockers within Mini-Sentinel, which has created a distributed data system of 18 health plans. To obtain the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), we performed (i) a propensity score-stratified case-centered logistic regression analysis, a method identical to a stratified Cox regression analysis but needing only aggregated risk set data, and (ii) an inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis, which requires only the site-specific HR and variance. We also performed simulations to further compare the two methods. RESULTS: Compared with beta-blockers, the adjusted HR was 3.04 (95% CI: 2.81, 3.27) for ACEIs, 1.16 (1.00, 1.34) for ARBs, and 2.85 (1.34, 6.04) for aliskiren in the case-centered analysis. The corresponding HRs were 2.98 (2.76, 3.21), 1.15 (1.00, 1.33), and 2.86 (1.35, 6.04) in the meta-analysis. Simulations suggested that the two methods may produce different results under certain analytic scenarios. CONCLUSION: The case-centered analysis and the meta-analysis produced similar results without the need to share patient-level data across sites in our empirical study, but may provide different results in other study settings.

Validity of diagnostic codes to identify cases of severe acute liver injury in the US Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database.

PURPOSE: The validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes to identify diagnoses of severe acute liver injury (SALI) is not well known. We examined the positive predictive values (PPVs) of hospital ICD-9-CM diagnoses in identifying SALI among health plan members in the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database (MSDD) for patients without liver/biliary disease and for those with chronic liver disease (CLD). METHODS: We selected random samples of members (149 without liver/biliary disease; 75 with CLD) with a principal hospital diagnosis suggestive of SALI (ICD-9-CM 570, 572.2, 572.4, 572.8, 573.3, 573.8, or V42.7) in the MSDD (2009-2010). Medical records were reviewed by hepatologists to confirm SALI events. PPVs of codes and code combinations for confirmed SALI were determined by CLD status. RESULTS: Among 105 members with available records and no liver/biliary disease, SALI was confirmed in 26 (PPV, 24.7%; 95%CI, 16.9-34.1%). Combined hospital diagnoses of acute hepatic necrosis (570) and liver disease sequelae (572.8) had high PPV (100%; 95%CI, 59.0-100%) and identified 7/26 (26.9%) events. Among 46 CLD members with available records, SALI was confirmed in 19 (PPV, 41.3%; 95%CI, 27.0-56.8%). Acute hepatic necrosis (570) or hepatorenal syndrome (572.4) plus any other SALI code had a PPV of 83.3% (95%CI, 51.6-97.9%) and identified 10/19 (52.6%) events. CONCLUSIONS: Most individual hospital ICD-9-CM diagnoses had low PPV for confirmed SALI events. Select code combinations had high PPV but did not capture all events.

Long-term consequences of drugs on the paediatric cardiovascular system.

Many pharmacological and toxicological actions of drugs in children cannot be fully predicted from adult clinical experience or from standard non-clinical toxicology studies. Numerous drugs have direct or indirect pharmacological effects on the heart and are prescribed for children of all ages. Toxicity or secondary effects may be immediate or delayed for years after drug exposure has ceased. Originally, the aim of this review was to compile information on the effect of specific drugs on the post-natal development of the cardiovascular system and to examine long-term follow-up of the use of cardio-active drugs in children. The limited database of published information caused the original question to evolve into an examination of the medical literature for three areas of information: (i) whether vulnerable developmental windows have been identified that reflect the substantial functional development that the cardiovascular system undergoes after birth; (ii) what is known about pharmacological perturbation of development; and (iii) what the likelihood is of drug exposure during childhood. We examined different scenarios for exposure including random, isolated exposure, conditions historically associated with adults, primary or secondary cardiac disease, psychiatric and neurological conditions, asthma, cancer and HIV. Except for random, isolated drug exposures, each category of possible exposure contained numerous drugs known to have either primary or secondary effects on the cardiovascular system or to influence factors associated with atherosclerosis. It is likely that a significant number of children will be prescribed drugs having either direct or indirect effects upon the immature cardiovascular system. A confounding factor is the simultaneous use of over-the-counter medications and herbal or nutraceutical preparations that a patient, parent or guardian does not mention to a prescribing physician. Metabolism is also important in assessing drug effects in children. Differences in body water : body fat ratio, age-related gastrointestinal absorption, distribution, excretion, renal function and drug metabolizing capabilities make it possible for children to have a different metabolite profile for a drug compared with adults. There is little examination of drug effects on the interdependent processes of cardiac maturation and less examination of metabolite effects. It is difficult to identify delayed toxicities in children as these adverse events may take years to manifest with many patients lost to follow-up. Clearly this is an area of study where intermediate endpoints and surrogate markers would be of great benefit. Pharmacogenomics may be useful in providing markers of increased risk or susceptibility. A perspective must be kept in balancing the possibility of a problem with the very real benefits that many children experience from the use of these pharmaceuticals.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of pregabalin and venlafaxine.

OBJECTIVE: Pregabalin has demonstrated robust, rapid efficacy in reducing symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in 4 placebo-controlled clinical trials. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of pregabalin and venlafaxine in patients diagnosed with moderate to severe GAD. METHOD: The study was conducted from December 21, 1999, to July 31, 2001. Outpatients (N = 421) in primary care or psychiatry settings meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with pregabalin 400 or 600 mg/day, venlafaxine 75 mg/day, or placebo. The primary analysis was change in Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) total score from baseline to last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) endpoint. Secondary analyses included the change in HAM-A psychic (emotional) and somatic (physical) factor scores, significant improvement at week 1, and week 1 improvement sustained at every visit through endpoint. RESULTS: Pregabalin at both dosages (400 mg/day, p = .008; 600 mg/day, p = .03) and venlafaxine (p = .03) produced significantly-greater improvement in HAM-A total score at LOCF endpoint than did placebo. Only the pregabalin 400-mg/day treatment group experienced significant improvement in all a priori primary and secondary efficacy measures. Pregabalin in both dosage treatment groups (400 mg/day, p < .01; 600 mg/day, p < .001) significantly improved HAM-A total score at week 1, with significant improvement through LOCF endpoint. Statistically significant improvement began at week 2 for venlafaxine. Discontinuation rates due to associated adverse events were greatest in the venlafaxine treatment group: venlafaxine, 20.4%; pregabalin 400 mg/day, 6.2%; pregabalin 600 mg/day, 13.6%; placebo, 9.9%. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin was safe, well tolerated, and rapidly efficacious across the physical-somatic as well as the emotional symptoms of GAD in the majority of patients studied in primary care and psychiatric settings.

Pregabalin for treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a 4-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin and alprazolam.

BACKGROUND: Pregabalin inhibits release of excess excitatory neurotransmitters, presumably by binding to the alpha2-delta subunit protein of widely distributed voltage-dependent calcium channels in the brain and spinal cord. OBJECTIVE: To assess the anxiolytic efficacy of pregabalin in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator trial. Patients were randomized to 4 weeks of treatment with pregabalin, 300 mg/d (n = 91), 450 mg/d (n = 90), or 600 mg/d (n = 89); alprazolam, 1.5 mg/d (n = 93); or placebo (n = 91). SETTING: Psychiatry research and clinic settings. PATIENTS: Outpatients meeting the DSM-IV criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, with a baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score of 20 or greater. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from baseline to end point in total HAM-A score in the pregabalin and alprazolam groups compared with the placebo group. The end point response criterion was 50% or greater reduction in the HAM-A total score. RESULTS: Pregabalin and alprazolam produced a significantly greater reduction in mean +/- SE HAM-A total score at last-observation-carried-forward end point compared with placebo (-8.4 +/- 0.8): pregabalin, 300 mg (-12.2 +/- 0.8, P<.001), 450 mg (-11.0 +/- 0.8, P = .02), and 600 mg (-11.8 +/- 0.8, P = .002), and alprazolam (-10.9 +/- 0.8, P = .02). By week 1 and at last-observation-carried-forward end point, the 3 pregabalin groups and the alprazolam group had significantly (P<.01) improved HAM-A psychic anxiety symptoms compared with the placebo group. Compared with the placebo group, HAM-A somatic anxiety symptoms were also significantly (P<.02) improved by the 300- and 600-mg pregabalin groups, but not by the 450-mg pregabalin (week 1, P = .06; week 4, P = .32) and the alprazolam groups (week 1, P = .21; week 4, P = .15). Of the 5 treatment groups, the 300-mg pregabalin group was the only medication group that differed statistically in global improvement at treatment end point not only from the placebo group but also from the alprazolam group. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin was significantly more efficacious than placebo for the treatment of psychic and somatic symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder and was well tolerated by most study patients.

Comparative risk for angioedema associated with the use of drugs that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

BACKGROUND: Although certain drugs that target the renin- angiotensin-aldosterone system are linked to an increased risk for angioedema, data on their absolute and comparative risks are limited. We assessed the risk for angioedema associated with the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational, inception cohort study of patients 18 years or older from 17 health plans participating in the Mini-Sentinel program who had initiated the use of an ACEI (n = 1 845 138), an ARB (n = 467 313), aliskiren (n = 4867), or a ß-blocker (n = 1 592 278) between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2010. We calculated the cumulative incidence and incidence rate of angioedema during a maximal 365-day follow-up period. Using ß-blockers as a reference and a propensity score approach, we estimated the hazard ratios of angioedema separately for ACEIs, ARBs, and aliskiren, adjusting for age, sex, history of allergic reactions, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or ischemic heart disease, and the use of prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS: A total of 4511 angioedema events (3301 for ACEIs, 288 for ARBs, 7 for aliskiren, and 915 for ß-blockers) were observed during the follow-up period. The cumulative incidences per 1000 persons were 1.79 (95% CI, 1.73-1.85) cases for ACEIs, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.69) cases for ARBs, 1.44 (95% CI, 0.58-2.96) cases for aliskiren, and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61) cases for ß-blockers. The incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 4.38 (95% CI, 4.24-4.54) cases for ACEIs, 1.66 (95% CI, 1.47-1.86) cases for ARBs, 4.67 (95% CI, 1.88-9.63) cases for aliskiren, and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.56-1.78) cases for ß-blockers. Compared with the use of ß-blockers, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.04 (95% CI, 2.81-3.27) for ACEIs, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34) for ARBs, and 2.85 (95% CI, 1.34-6.04) for aliskiren. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ß-blockers, ACEIs or aliskiren was associated with an approximately 3-fold higher risk for angioedema, although the number of exposed events for aliskiren was small. The risk for angioedema was lower with ARBs than with ACEIs or aliskiren.