Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente-integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63-14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44-14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24-2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40-4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18-2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56-5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25-1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65-0.73) for expulsion. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.

Association between menorrhagia and risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective instruments for contraception, and 1 levonorgestrel-releasing device is also indicated for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of intrauterine device expulsion and uterine perforation in women with and without a diagnosis of menorrhagia within the first 12 months before device insertion STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 3 integrated healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a healthcare information exchange (Regenstrief Institute) in the United States using electronic health records. Nonpostpartum women aged ≤50 years with intrauterine device (eg, levonorgestrel or copper) insertions from 2001 to 2018 and without a delivery in the previous 12 months were studied in this analysis. Recent menorrhagia diagnosis (ie, recorded ≤12 months before insertion) was ascertained from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The study outcomes, viz, device expulsion and device-related uterine perforation (complete or partial), were ascertained from electronic medical records and validated in the data sources. The cumulative incidence and crude incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the crude and adjusted hazard ratios using propensity score overlap weighting (13-16 variables) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among 228,834 nonpostpartum women, the mean age was 33.1 years, 44.4% of them were White, and 31,600 (13.8%) had a recent menorrhagia diagnosis. Most women had a levonorgestrel-releasing device (96.4% of those with and 78.2% of those without a menorrhagia diagnosis). Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis were likely to be older, obese, and have dysmenorrhea or fibroids. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher intrauterine device-expulsion rate (40.01 vs 10.92 per 1000 person-years) than those without, especially evident in the first few months after insertion. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of expulsion (7.00% [6.70-7.32] at 1 year and 12.03% [11.52-12.55] at 5 years) vs those without (1.77% [1.70-1.84] at 1 year and 3.69% [3.56-3.83] at 5 years). The risk of expulsion was increased for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs for those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84 [95% confidence interval, 2.66-3.03]). The perforation rate was low overall (<1/1000 person-years) but higher in women with a diagnosis of menorrhagia vs in those without (0.98 vs 0.63 per 1000 person-years). The cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of uterine perforation was slightly higher for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis (0.09% [0.06-0.14] at 1 year and 0.39% [0.29-0.53] at 5 years) than those without it (0.07% [0.06-0.08] at 1 year and 0.28% [0.24-0.33] at 5 years). The risk of perforation was slightly increased in women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs in those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.13). CONCLUSION: The risk of expulsion is significantly higher in women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia. Patient education and counseling regarding the potential expulsion risk is recommended at insertion. The absolute risk of perforation for women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia is very low. The increased expulsion and perforation rates observed are likely because of causal factors of menorrhagia.

Prognostic factors of brain metastasis and survival among HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer who overexpress the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and subsequently develop brain metastasis (BM) typically experience poor quality of life and low survival. We conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify prognostic factors for BM and predictors of survival after developing BM, and the effects of therapies with different mechanisms of action among patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC). METHODS: A prespecified search strategy was used to identify research studies investigating BM in patients with HER2+ BC published in English during January 1, 2009-to June 25, 2021. Articles were screened using a two-phase process, and data from selected articles were extracted. RESULTS: We identified 25 published articles including 4097 patients with HER2+ BC and BM. Prognostic factors associated with shorter time to BM diagnosis after initial BC diagnosis included younger age, hormone receptor negative status, larger tumor size or higher tumor grade, and lack of treatment with anti-HER2 therapy. Factors predictive of longer survival after BM included having fewer brain lesions (< 3 or a single lesion) and receipt of any treatment after BM, including radiosurgery, neurosurgery and/or systemic therapy. Patients receiving combination trastuzumab and lapatinib therapy or trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy had the longest median survival compared with other therapies assessed in this review. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to better understand risk factors for BM and survival after BM in the context of HER2+ BC, as well as the assessment of new anti-HER2 therapy regimens that may provide additional therapeutic options for BM in these patients.

Design of the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study: a multisite retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective and safe, long-acting reversible contraceptives, but the risk of uterine perforation occurs with an estimated incidence of 1 to 2 per 1000 insertions. The European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants (2006-2012), found that women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at ≤36 weeks after delivery had a higher risk of uterine perforation. The Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device (APEX-IUD) study was a Food and Drug Administration-mandated study designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. The aims of the APEX-IUD study were to evaluate the risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who were breastfeeding or within 12 months after delivery at insertion. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the APEX-IUD study design, methodology, and analytical plan and present population characteristics, size of risk factor groups, and duration of follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: APEX-IUD study was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 4 organizations with access to electronic health records: Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Regenstrief Institute in Indiana. Variables were identified through structured data (eg, diagnostic, procedural, medication codes) and unstructured data (eg, clinical notes) via natural language processing. Outcomes include uterine perforation and device expulsion; potential risk factors were breastfeeding at insertion, postpartum timing of insertion, device type, and menorrhagia diagnosis in the year before insertion. Covariates include demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and procedure-related variables, such as difficult insertion. The first potential date of inclusion for eligible women varies by research site (from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2010). Follow-up begins at insertion and ends at first occurrence of an outcome of interest, a censoring event (device removal or reinsertion, pregnancy, hysterectomy, sterilization, device expiration, death, disenrollment, last clinical encounter), or end of the study period (June 30, 2018). Comparisons of levels of exposure variables were made using Cox regression models with confounding adjusted by propensity score weighting using overlap weights. RESULTS: The study population includes 326,658 women with at least 1 device insertion during the study period (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 161,442; Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 123,214; Kaiser Permanente Washington, 20,526; Regenstrief Institute, 21,476). The median duration of continuous enrollment was 90 (site medians 74-177) months. The mean age was 32 years, and the population was racially and ethnically diverse across the 4 sites. The mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2, and of the women included in the study, 10.0% had menorrhagia ≤12 months before insertion, 5.3% had uterine fibroids, and 10% were recent smokers; furthermore, among these women, 79.4% had levonorgestrel-releasing devices, and 19.5% had copper devices. Across sites, 97,824 women had an intrauterine device insertion at ≤52 weeks after delivery, of which 94,817 women (97%) had breastfeeding status at insertion determined; in addition, 228,834 women had intrauterine device insertion at >52 weeks after delivery or no evidence of a delivery in their health record. CONCLUSION: Combining retrospective data from multiple sites allowed for a large and diverse study population. Collaboration with clinicians in the study design and validation of outcomes ensured that the APEX-IUD study results reflect current United States clinical practice. Results from this study will provide valuable information based on real-world evidence about risk factors for intrauterine devices perforation and expulsion for clinicians.

Incidence of pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease induced by HER2-targeting therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies are associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), also referred to as pneumonitis. In this literature review, we describe the incidence of ILD among patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving anti-HER2 therapies, and we describe existing recommendations for monitoring and managing drug-induced ILD among these patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase to identify clinical trials and postmarket observational studies that investigated anti-HER2 therapies for HER2-positive MBC, reported on ILD, and were published during January 1, 2009 to July 15, 2019. Articles were screened by two researchers; data were extracted from the full-text articles. RESULTS: The 18 articles selected for this review assessed 9,886 patients who received trastuzumab (8 articles), lapatinib (4 articles), trastuzumab emtansine (3 articles), trastuzumab deruxtecan (2 articles), or trastuzumab duocarmazine (1 article). The overall incidence of all-grade ILD was 2.4% (n = 234), with 66.7% (n = 156) occurring as grade 1-2 events, 0.5% grade 3-4 (n = 54; incidence), and 0.2% grade 5 (n = 16; incidence). The highest ILD incidence (21.4%) was among patients receiving trastuzumab combined with everolimus and paclitaxel. Ten studies indicated that ILD events were managed via dose interruption, dose reduction, or treatment discontinuation; two studies included detailed guidelines on managing drug-induced ILD. CONCLUSIONS: ILD is a well-described adverse drug reaction associated with several anti-HER2 drugs. Published ILD management guidelines are available for few anti-HER2 treatment regimens; however, guidance for monitoring for anti-HER2 drug-induced ILD is lacking.

Engaging stakeholders in pharmacoepidemiology research: Current state and recommendations.

PURPOSE: Given current efforts to enhance patient-centered care and shared decision-making, the International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology Workgroup on Patient Engagement assessed patient and other stakeholder engagement in pharmacoepidemiology research and provides recommendations for the field. METHODS: A systematic review used MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify published literature from 2005 to 2016 addressing how stakeholders-patients, caregivers, and others-assisted researchers conducting pharmacoepidemiologic research. Three pairs of Workgroup members screened titles and abstracts to select articles for full-text review and analysis. Two Workgroup members abstracted the following data: research focus, characterization and role of stakeholders, and type(s) of engagement strategy employed. Data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 5717 references for abstract screening. Of these, 69 met the criteria for full-text screening, and 11 were selected for data abstraction. Of these 11 studies, seven focused on the development of a research agenda and eight had stakeholders react or advise on an aspect of the study. Although patients were the most commonly identified stakeholders, advocacy groups and health care professionals were also frequently identified. Some studies reported the engagement of other stakeholders, including local government or policy experts. Engagement strategies varied, with five studies using more than one strategy. Studies often did not indicate the involvement of stakeholders in developing the study design or with implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, few pharmacoepidemiology publications mention patient or other stakeholder engagement in the design, analysis, or reporting of research. This suggests that there are opportunities to expand stakeholder engagement and/or increase the transparency of reporting stakeholder engagement.

Communicating medical device recalls: A rapid review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently regulates more than 190,000 different medical devices. Like all products, these devices may be subject to manufacturing problems, flawed designs, or new and unexpected risks, which in some cases require devices to be recalled. In 2021, the FDA's Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC) recommended that the FDA consider changes to the communication approach used for medical device recalls to make them more patient-focused, timely, and action-oriented. METHODS: To support this recommendation, we conducted a rapid review of literature published from 2008-2022 to capture and examine information on risk communication approaches, methods, and best practices for recall-related communications about medical products. RESULTS: We identified 23 articles to include in our review. CONCLUSION: Our review found a lack of research-based studies as well as gaps in understanding about consumer perspectives, comprehension, and communication preferences related to recalls. Despite these limitations, we identified current communication approaches, numerous challenges, and recommendations for communicating medical products recall information to consumers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to assess consumer attitudes, understanding, and preferences and to reach consensus on best practices for effectively communicating recall information to consumers of medical products.

Can Weight of Evidence, Quantitative Bias, and Bounding Methods Evaluate Robustness of Real-world Evidence for Regulator and Health Technology Assessment Decisions on Medical Interventions?

PURPOSE: High-quality evidence is crucial for health care intervention decision-making. These decisions frequently use nonrandomized data, which can be more vulnerable to biases than randomized trials. Accordingly, methods to quantify biases and weigh available evidence could elucidate the robustness of findings, giving regulators more confidence in making approval and reimbursement decisions. METHODS: We conducted an integrative literature review to identify methods for determining probability of causation, evaluating weight of evidence, and conducting quantitative bias analysis as related to health care interventions. Eligible studies were published from 2012 to 2021, applicable to pharmacoepidemiology, and presented a method that met our objective. FINDINGS: Twenty-two eligible studies were classified into 4 categories: (1) quantitative bias analysis; (2) weight of evidence methods; (3) Bayesian networks; and (4) miscellaneous. All of the methods have strengths, limitations, and situations in which they are more well suited than others. Some methods seem to lend themselves more to applications of health care evidence on medical interventions than others. IMPLICATIONS: To provide robust evidence for and improve confidence in regulatory or reimbursement decisions, we recommend applying multiple methods to triangulate associations of medical interventions, accounting for biases in different ways. This approach could lead to well-defined robustness assessments of study findings and appropriate science-driven decisions by regulators and payers for public health.