Real-world data to support post-market safety and performance of embolization coils: evidence generation from a medical device manufacturer and data institute partnership.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the limitations of pre-market clinical data, regulatory authorities have embraced total product lifecycle management with post-market surveillance (PMS) data to assess medical device safety and performance. One method of proactive PMS involves the analysis of real-world data (RWD) through retrospective review of electronic health records (EHR). Because EHRs are patient-centered and focused on providing tools that clinicians use to determine care rather than collecting information on individual medical products, the process of transforming RWD into real-world evidence (RWE) can be laborious, particularly for medical devices with broad clinical use and extended clinical follow-up. This study describes a method to extract RWD from EHR to generate RWE on the safety and performance of embolization coils. METHODS: Through a partnership between a non-profit data institute and a medical device manufacturer, information on implantable embolization coils' use was extracted, linked, and analyzed from clinical data housed in an electronic data warehouse from the state of Indiana's largest health system. To evaluate the performance and safety of the embolization coils, technical success and safety were defined as per the Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines. A multi-prong strategy including electronic and manual review of unstructured (clinical chart notes) and structured data (International Classification of Disease codes), was developed to identify patients with relevant devices and extract data related to the endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 323 patients were identified as treated using Cook Medical Tornado, Nester, or MReye embolization coils between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018. Available clinical follow-up for these patients was 1127 ± 719 days. Indications for use, adverse events, and procedural success rates were identified via automated extraction of structured data along with review of available unstructured data. The overall technical success rate was 96.7%, and the safety events rate was 5.3% with 18 major adverse events in 17 patients. The calculated technical success and safety rates met pre-established performance goals (≥ 85% for technical success and ≤ 12% for safety), highlighting the relevance of this surveillance method. CONCLUSIONS: Generating RWE from RWD requires careful planning and execution. The process described herein provided valuable longitudinal data for PMS of real-world device safety and performance. This cost-effective approach can be translated to other medical devices and similar RWD database systems.

Risks of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion Associated With Intrauterine Devices.

OBJECTIVE: The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices) study evaluated the association of postpartum timing of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, breastfeeding, heavy menstrual bleeding, and IUD type (levonorgestrel-releasing vs copper) with risks of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion in usual clinical practice. We summarize the clinically important findings to inform counseling and shared decision making. METHODS: APEX-IUD was a real-world (using U.S. health care data) retrospective cohort study of individuals aged 50 years and younger with IUD insertions between 2001 and 2018 and with electronic health record data. Cumulative incidences of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were estimated from proportional hazards models with control of confounding. RESULTS: Among the study population of 326,658, absolute risk of uterine perforation was low overall (cumulative incidence, 0.21% [95% CI 0.19-0.23%] at 1 year and 0.61% [95% CI 0.56-0.66% at 5 years]) but was elevated for IUDs inserted during time intervals within 1 year postpartum, particularly among those between 4 days and 6 weeks postpartum (aHR 6.71, 95% CI 4.80-9.38), relative to nonpostpartum insertions. Among postpartum insertions, IUD expulsion risk was greatest for insertions in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days after delivery) compared with nonpostpartum (aHR 5.34, 95% CI 4.47-6.39). Postpartum individuals who were breastfeeding had a slightly elevated risk of perforation and lowered risk of expulsion than those not breastfeeding. Among nonpostpartum individuals, those with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis were at greater risk of expulsion than those without (aHR 2.84, 95% CI 2.66-3.03); heavy menstrual bleeding also was associated with a slightly elevated perforation risk. There was a slightly elevated perforation risk and slightly lower expulsion risk associated with levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs compared with copper IUDs. CONCLUSION: Absolute risk of adverse outcomes with IUD insertion is low. Clinicians should be aware of the differences in risks of uterine perforation and expulsion associated with IUD insertion during specific postpartum time periods and with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis. This information should be incorporated into counseling and decision making for patients considering IUD insertion. FUNDING SOURCE: Bayer AG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.

Real-world genomic testing and treatment patterns of newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia patients within a comprehensive health system.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the frequency of genomic testing and treatment patterns by age category in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated in both academic- and community-based health systems within a single Midwestern State. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Indiana University Health System Enterprise Data Warehouse and two local cancer registries, of 629 patients aged ≥18 years with ND AML during 2011-2018. Primary outcome variables were, proportion of patients with genomic analysis and frequency of mutations. Chemotherapy was categorized as "standard induction" or "other chemotherapy"/targeted therapy, and hypomethylating agents. RESULTS: Overall, 13% of ND AML patients between 2011 and 2018 had evidence of a genomic sequencing report with a demonstrated increase to 37% since 2016. Genomic testing was more likely performed in patients: aged ≤60 years than >60 years (45% vs. 30%; p = 0.03), treated in academic versus community hospitals (44% vs. 26%; p = 0.01), and in chemotherapy recipients than non-therapy recipients (46% vs. 19%; p < 0.001). Most common mutations were ASXL1, NPM1, and FLT3. Patients ≥75 years had highest proportion (46%) of multiple (≥3) mutations. Overall, 31.2% of patients with AML did not receive any therapy for their disease. This subgroup was older than chemotherapy recipients (mean age: 71.4 vs. 55.7 years, p < 0.001), and was highest (66.2%) in patients ≥75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the unmet medical need to increase access to genomic testing to afford treatment options, particularly to older AML patients in the real-world setting, in this new era of targeted therapies.

Real-world performance of SARS-Cov-2 serology tests in the United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation. METHODS: Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters. RESULTS: A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets. CONCLUSION: Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Real-world utilization of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing in RNA positive patients across the United States.

BACKGROUND: As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States. METHODS: Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets-limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources-a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.

Demographic, Reproductive, and Medical Risk Factors for Intrauterine Device Expulsion.

OBJECTIVE: To explore to what extent intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion is associated with demographic and clinical risk factors. METHODS: The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of IntraUterine Devices) study was a U.S. cohort study using electronic health records from three integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a health care information exchange (Regenstrief Institute). These analyses included individuals aged 50 years or younger with IUD insertions from 2001 to 2018. Intrauterine device expulsion cumulative incidence and incidence rates were estimated. Using Cox regression models, hazard ratios with 95% CIs were estimated before and after adjustment for risk factors of interest (age, race and ethnicity, parity, body mass index [BMI], heavy menstrual bleeding, and dysmenorrhea) and potential confounders. RESULTS: In total, 228,834 individuals with IUD insertion and no delivery in the previous 52 weeks were identified (184,733 [80.7%] with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system). Diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding-particularly a diagnosis in both recent and past periods-was the strongest risk factor for IUD expulsion. Categories with the highest risk of IUD expulsion within each risk factor included individuals diagnosed with overweight, obesity, and morbid obesity; those in younger age groups, especially among those aged 24 years or younger; and in those with parity of four or more. Non-Hispanic White individuals had the lowest incidence and risk, and after adjustment, Asian or Pacific Islander individuals had the highest risk. Dysmenorrhea was not independently associated with expulsion risk when adjusting for heavy menstrual bleeding. CONCLUSION: Most risk factors for expulsion identified in this study appear consistent with known physiologic factors that affect uterine anatomy and physiology (age, BMI, heavy menstrual bleeding, parity). The increased risk of IUD expulsion among individuals of color warrants further investigation. Intrauterine devices are an effective long-term contraceptive; expulsion is uncommon, but patients should be counseled accordingly. FUNDING SOURCE: Bayer AG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.

Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes. METHODS: We did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Data from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66). INTERPRETATION: Although the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

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.

Association of the Timing of Postpartum Intrauterine Device Insertion and Breastfeeding With Risks of Intrauterine Device Expulsion.

IMPORTANCE: Intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion increases the risk of unintended pregnancy; how timing of postpartum IUD insertion and breastfeeding are associated with risk of expulsion is relevant to the benefit-risk profile. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of postpartum timing of IUD insertion and breastfeeding status with incidence and risk of IUD expulsion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study included women aged 50 years or younger with an IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018. The breastfeeding analysis focused on a subcohort of women at 52 or fewer weeks post partum with known breastfeeding status. The study was conducted using data from electronic health records (EHRs) at 4 research sites with access to EHR: 3 Kaiser Permanente sites (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and the Regenstrief Institute (Indiana). Data analysis was conducted from June to November 2019. EXPOSURES: Timing of IUD insertion post partum was categorized into discrete time periods: 0 to 3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, more than 6 weeks to 14 or fewer weeks, more than 14 weeks to 52 or fewer weeks, and non-post partum (>52 weeks or no evidence of delivery). Breastfeeding status at the time of insertion was determined from clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires from well-baby visits. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incidence rates and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were estimated using propensity scores to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: The full cohort included 326 658 women (mean [SD] age, 32.0 [8.3] years; 38 911 [11.9%] Asian or Pacific Islander; 696 [0.2%] Hispanic Black; 56 180 [17.2%] Hispanic other; 42 501 [13.0%] Hispanic White; 28 323 [8.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 137 102 [42.0%] non-Hispanic White), and the subcohort included 94 817 women. Most IUDs were levonorgestrel-releasing (259 234 [79.4%]). There were 8943 expulsions. The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest for insertions 0 to 3 days post partum (10.73%; 95% CI, 9.12%-12.61%) and lowest for insertions more than 6 weeks to 14 or fewer weeks post partum (3.18%; 95% CI, 2.95%-3.42%). Adjusted HRs using women with non-post partum IUD insertion as the referent were 5.34 (95% CI, 4.47-6.39) for those with postpartum insertion at 0 to 3 days; 1.22 (95% CI, 1.05-1.41) for those with postpartum insertion at 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) for those with postpartum insertion at more than 6 to 14 or fewer weeks; and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.29-1.60) for those with postpartum insertion at more than 14 to 52 or fewer weeks. In the subcohort, 5-year cumulative incidence was 3.49% (95% CI, 3.25%-3.73%) for breastfeeding women and 4.57% (95% CI, 4.22%-4.95%) for nonbreastfeeding women; the adjusted HR for breastfeeding vs not breastfeeding was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.78). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of real-world data, IUD expulsion was rare but more common with immediate postpartum insertion. Breastfeeding was associated with lower expulsion risk.

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.

Identification and validation of uterine perforation, intrauterine device expulsion, and breastfeeding in four health care systems with electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: To validate algorithms identifying uterine perforations and intrauterine device (IUD) expulsions and to ascertain availability of breastfeeding status at the time of IUD insertion. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Four health care systems with electronic health records (EHRs) participated: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), and Regenstrief Institute (RI). The study included women ≤50 years of age with an IUD insertion. Site-specific algorithms using structured and unstructured data were developed and a sample validated by EHR review. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of the algorithms were calculated. Breastfeeding status was assessed in a random sample of 125 women at each research site with IUD placement within 52 weeks postpartum. RESULTS: The study population included 282,028 women with 325,582 IUD insertions. The PPVs for uterine perforation were KPNC 77%, KPSC 81%, KPWA 82%, and RI 47%; PPVs for IUD expulsion were KPNC 77%, KPSC 87%, KPWA 68%, and RI 37%. Across all research sites, breastfeeding status at the time of IUD insertion was determined for 94% of those sampled. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms with a high PPV for uterine perforation and IUD expulsion were developed at 3 of the 4 research sites. Breastfeeding status at the time of IUD insertion could be determined at all research sites. Our findings suggest that a study to evaluate the associations of breastfeeding and postpartum IUD insertions with risk of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion can be successfully conducted retrospectively; however, automated application of algorithms must be supplemented with chart review for some outcomes at one research site due to low PPV.

Treatment patterns and health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis on biologic therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies have been used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have been inadequately treated with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). OBJECTIVE: Examine treatment patterns and health care costs among patients with PsAs who initiated biologic therapy either as monotherapy or adjunctively with traditional DMARDs. METHODS: The MarketScan(®) database was used to identify adults with PsA who initiated therapy with a biologic (with first use identified as index date). Patients were required to have a 6-month pre-period with no biologic use and 1 year insurance eligibility pre- and post-index date. Cohorts of patients initiating biologic therapy either as monotherapy or adjunctively with traditional DMARDs were created. Medication use patterns including discontinuation, switching, and restarting were identified during the 1-year follow-up period. Cox proportional hazards models were conducted to compare time to discontinuation of index biologic, and logistic models were used to compare the rate of discontinuation and biologic switching between the 2 cohorts. All-cause and PsA-related costs were compared between the 2 cohorts using propensity score-adjusted bootstrapping methods. All comparisons were made after adjusting for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and PsA-related total cost over 1-year pre-index date. RESULTS: Among the 3164 PsA patients identified, 67.7% initiated biologics as monotherapy and 32.3% initiated biologics adjunctively with traditional DMARDs. The number of patients on pain medications, topical medications, and traditional DMARDs was significantly lower post index date compared to pre-index date (P < 0.01), while use of antihypertensives, antidiabetics, and statins increased after patients initiated biologic therapy. In 1-year post-period, approximately half of the patients (50.9%) who initiated a biologic continued their index biologic with an average time to discontinuation of 279.8 days for all patients. Rates of discontinuation, switching, and restart were 33.1%, 9.9%, and 6.1%, respectively, for all patients. Rates of switching and restart were similar between the 2 cohorts, but a significantly lower rate of discontinuation was observed in the biologic plus traditional DMARDs cohort than the biologic monotherapy cohort. Pharmacy expenditures were higher for the biologic + DMARD cohort than the biologic-monotherapy cohort ($14,486 vs $14,062; P = 0.0348). No statistically significant differences for either all-cause or PsA-specific costs were observed across the treatment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional DMARDs used in combination with biologic therapy appear to reduce rates of biologic therapy discontinuation.

Quality of life scores as prognostic factors of overall survival in advanced head and neck cancer: analysis of a phase III randomized trial of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the prognostic factors (clinical, demographic, and health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) who were treated with pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin in a phase III, multinational, randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Cancer (FACT-H&N), modified to score from 0 to 100, measured HRQoL at baseline and during treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used on data pooled from both treatment arms to assess the effect of baseline prognostic factors on OS and PFS. RESULTS: Of 795 patients randomized, 704 completed a baseline FACT-H&N and were included in the analysis. Age (<65 versus ⩾65; HR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90), race (Caucasian versus non-Caucasian; HR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98 per table), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0/1 versus 2; HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.35-0.56), prior surgery/radiotherapy in the last 6months (no versus yes; HR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90), and primary site of disease (oral cavity versus other; HR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.15-1.63) were significantly prognostic of OS in univariate models, as were baseline scores on four FACT-H&N subscales (physical well-being, emotional well-being, functional well-being, additional concerns-H&N; HRs=0.82-0.94; all P⩽0.002). In multivariate models, significant prognostic factors were age (HR=0.78); race (HR=0.76 per table); ECOG PS (HR=0.56); prior surgery/radiotherapy (HR=0.76); and baseline scores of the FACT-H&N subscales of physical well-being, social/family well-being, and additional concerns-H&N (HRs=0.89-0.94; all P⩽0.014 per table). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that baseline HRQoL scores are prognostic indicators of OS in recurrent/metastatic HNC in addition to other known clinical and demographic indicators. HRQoL might be considered as a stratification factor in randomized clinical trials of recurrent/metastatic HNC.

Predictors of relapse or recurrence in bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Bipolar disorder represents a major public health concern and, despite treatment, is characterized by recurring episodes of mania, depression, or mixed states. Prevention of relapse or recurrence is a primary treatment objective in the management of the disorder. The objective of the current study was to identify predictors of relapse/recurrence in patients with bipolar I disorder treated with olanzapine, lithium, divalproex, or olanzapine plus divalproex/lithium. METHODS: Data from four clinical trials studying the efficacy of olanzapine compared to placebo and active comparators (lithium, divalproex, olanzapine plus divalproex/lithium) for bipolar I disorder were pooled for this analysis. Patients achieving remission after pharmacological treatment and entering randomized double-blind maintenance phase for 44 to 72 weeks were included. Cox Proportional Hazard models and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine predictors of relapse/recurrence for the pooled data and within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 929 patients meeting the criteria for remission and followed by maintenance treatment were included in this analysis, and 427 patients (46.0%) experienced symptomatic relapse/recurrence during the follow-up period. A 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total score<4, gender, rapid cycling and treatment emerged as significant predictors of relapse/recurrence and may be generalized to treatment with olanzapine and to some extent to treatment with lithium and divalproex. The results on treatment-specific predictors of relapse/recurrence are considered to be exploratory and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: The major findings from this study suggest that a HAMD-21 total score<4 may be a better predictor of maintenance of remission in bipolar I patients than HAMD-21 total score<8. The prophylactic effect of olanzapine, lithium, divalproex, olanzapine plus divalproex or lithium, and placebo was assessed and baseline predictors of relapse/recurrence were identified.

Relationship between African-American or Caucasian origin and outcomes in the olanzapine treatment of acute mania: a pooled analysis of three adult studies conducted in the United States of America.

The aim of this study was to explore the role of ethnic origin in the treatment of acute bipolar mania. Treatment outcomes were studied in a post-hoc analysis of African-American (AA, n=41) and Caucasian (CA, n=190) adults treated with olanzapine in three studies conducted in the United States of America. Baseline demographics were similar except that the AA cohort had fewer women compared with the CA cohort (37 vs. 58%; P=0.01). Daily mean modal olanzapine dose and study discontinuation rate for AA and CA were: 16.2 mg vs. 16.6 mg and 41.5 vs. 25.3% (P=0.03), respectively. There were four (23.5% of discontinuers) and 19 (39.6% of discontinuers, P=0.14) discontinuations because of a poor response in the AA and CA groups, respectively. Drug exposure for the AA cohort was 18.7 days and that of the CA cohort was 19.3 days. Both cohorts showed similar symptom improvements, and safety outcomes were not statistically significantly different except for the following treatment-emergent adverse event frequencies for AA and CA cohorts, respectively: agitation (24.4 vs. 10.5%, P=0.04); dysmenorrhoea (20.0 vs. 3.6%, P=0.04); and dizziness postural (7.3 vs. 1.1%, P=0.04). Although study findings [limited by a smaller (18% of total population) AA cohort] need replication, they suggest that while many outcomes were similar in both cohorts, clinicians could benefit from the awareness of factors in the AA population that possibly influence study discontinuation rates, treatment-emergent adverse event reporting, and participation by sex.

Impact of race on efficacy and safety during treatment with olanzapine in schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder.

BACKGROUND: To examine potential differences in efficacy and safety of treatment with olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia of white and black descent. METHODS: A post-hoc, pooled analysis of 6 randomized, double-blind trials in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder compared white (N = 605) and black (N = 375) patients treated with olanzapine (5 to 20 mg/day) for 24 to 28 weeks. Efficacy measurements included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score; and positive, negative, and general psychopathology scores; and the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) scores at 6 months. Safety measures included differences in the frequencies of adverse events along with measures of extrapyramidal symptoms, weight, glucose, and lipid changes over time. RESULTS: 51% of black patients and 45% of white patients experienced early study discontinuation (P = .133). Of those who discontinued, significantly more white patients experienced psychiatric worsening (P = .002) while significantly more black patients discontinued for reasons other than efficacy or tolerability (P = .014). Discontinuation for intolerability was not different between groups (P = .320). For the estimated change in PANSS total score over 6 months, there was no significant difference in efficacy between white and black patients (P = .928), nor on the estimated PANSS positive (P = .435), negative (P = .756) or general psychopathology (P = .165) scores. Overall, there was no significant difference in the change in CGI-S score between groups from baseline to endpoint (P = .979). Weight change was not significantly different in white and black patients over 6 months (P = .127). However, mean weight change was significantly greater in black versus white patients at Weeks 12 and 20 only (P = .028 and P = .026, respectively). Additionally, a significantly greater percentage of black patients experienced clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7%) at anytime compared to white patients (36.1% vs. 30.4%, P = .021). Changes across metabolic parameters (combined fasting and random lipids and glucose) were also not significantly different between groups, with the exception of a greater categorical change in total cholesterol from borderline to high among white subjects and a categorical change from normal to low in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol among white males. CONCLUSIONS: The findings did not demonstrate overall substantive differences in efficacy or safety between white and black patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or related disorders treated with olanzapine. However, a significantly greater percentage of black patients (36.1%) experienced clinically significant weight gain compared to white patients (30.4%).

Symptoms predicting remission after divalproex augmentation with olanzapine in partially nonresponsive patients experiencing mixed bipolar I episode: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Rating scale items in a 6-week clinical trial of olanzapine versus placebo augmentation in patients with mixed bipolar disorder partially nonresponsive to ≥14 days of divalproex monotherapy were analyzed to characterize symptom patterns that could predict remission. At baseline, the two treatment groups were similar. FINDINGS: Factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed post hoc on baseline items of the 21-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Backwards-elimination logistic regression ascertained factors predictive of protocol-defined endpoint remission (HDRS-21 score ≤ 8 and YMRS score ≤ 12) with subsequent determination of optimally predictive factor score cutoffs.Factors for Psychomotor activity (YMRS items for elevated mood, increased motor activity, and increased speech and HDRS-21 agitation item) and Guilt/Suicidality (HDRS-21 items for guilt and suicidality) significantly predicted endpoint remission in the divalproex+olanzapine group. No factor predicted remission in the divalproex+placebo group. Patients in the divalproex+olanzapine group with high pre-augmentation psychomotor activity (scores ≥10) were more likely to remit compared to those with lower psychomotor activity (odds ratio [OR] = 3.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-7.79), and patients with marginally high Guilt/Suicidality (scores ≥2) were less likely to remit than those with lower scores (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.13-1.03). Remission rates for divalproex+placebo vs. divalproex+olanzapine patients with high psychomotor activity scores were 22% vs. 45% (p = 0.08) and 33% vs. 48% (p = 0.29) for patients with low Guilt/Suicidality scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were partially nonresponsive to divalproex treatment with remaining high vs. low psychomotor activity levels or minimal vs. greater guilt/suicidality symptoms were more likely to remit with olanzapine augmentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00402324?term=NCT00402324&rank=1, Identifier: NCT00402324.

Effects of a pharmacist-to-dose computerized request on promptness of antimicrobial therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of computerized requests for pharmacist-to-dose (PTD), an advanced clinical decision support tool for dosing guidance, on antimicrobial therapy with vancomycin and aminoglycosides, describe PTD request utilization, and identify factors that may prolong this process. DESIGN: A retrospective review was conducted of patients hospitalized from Jan 2004 to Jun 2006 with suspected pneumonia who received vancomycin, tobramycin, or gentamicin via PTD (study) or routine provider order entry (control). MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was time to pharmacist completion of PTD request. Secondary data points included medication turn-around times for first doses of vancomycin or aminoglycosides and for first doses of any antibiotic, dose adjustment for renal dysfunction, medication errors, and time of order entry. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictors of total time to pharmacist verification and time to administration of first doses of vancomycin or aminoglycosides. RESULTS: Median time for pharmacist completion of PTD requests was 29 minutes. Delays were noted in the study group (n = 49) by comparison with the control group (n = 48) for median time to first dose of vancomycin or aminoglycoside (185 vs. 138 min, p = 0.45) and for any antibiotic (134 vs. 118 min, p = 0.42), respectively. Fewer medication errors were reported in the study group (5 vs. 18 errors, p = 0.002). In a multivariate model, PTD was not significantly predictive of time to pharmacy verification or medication turn-around time. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists completed pharmacist-to-dose consultations for dosing guidance of vancomycin and aminoglycosides within a median of 30 minutes. Implementation of a computerized request for clinical pharmacists to provide medication-related clinical decision support increased medication turn-around time of vancomycin and aminoglycosides and reduced medication errors. Consultation of clinical pharmacists by computerized request for initial antibiotic dosing of medications with narrow therapeutic windows is an option for medication-related clinical decision support but providers should be aware that consultation may delay medication turn-around time.

Do depressive symptoms predict Alzheimer's disease and dementia?

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are common in seniors and may predict dementia. The objective of this study was to evaluate multiple measures of depressive symptoms to determine whether they predict subsequent Alzheimer's disease (AD) or dementia. METHODS: This population-based cohort study with 5-year follow-up included 766 community-dwelling seniors (ages 65+ years) in Manitoba, Canada. Measurements considered were the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, participant-reported medical history, and duration of depression. RESULTS: Total CES-D score was a significant predictor of AD and dementia when categorized as a dichotomous variable according to the cutoff scores of 16 and 17; a CES-D cutoff of 21 was a significant predictor of AD and a marginally significant predictor of dementia. When analyzed as a continuous variable, CES-D score was marginally predictive of AD and dementia. Neither participant-reported history of depression nor participant-reported duration of depression was significant in predicting AD or dementia. CONCLUSION: Because depressive symptoms as measured by the CES-D predict the development of AD and dementia over 5 years, clinicians should monitor their older patients with these symptoms for signs of cognitive impairment.