Totality of evidence of the effectiveness of repurposed therapies for COVID-19: Can we use real-world studies alongside randomized controlled trials?

Rapid and robust strategies to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of novel and existing pharmacotherapeutic interventions (repurposed treatments) in future pandemics are required. Observational "real-world studies" (RWS) can report more quickly than randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and would have value were they to yield reliable results. Both RCTs and RWS were deployed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Comparing results between them offers a unique opportunity to determine the potential value and contribution of each. A learning review of these parallel evidence channels in COVID-19, based on quantitative modeling, can help improve speed and reliability in the evaluation of repurposed therapeutics in a future pandemic. Analysis of all-cause mortality data from 249 observational RWS and RCTs across eight treatment regimens for COVID-19 showed that RWS yield more heterogeneous results, and generally overestimate the effect size subsequently seen in RCTs. This is explained in part by a few study factors: the presence of RWS that are imbalanced for age, gender, and disease severity, and those reporting mortality at 2 weeks or less. Smaller studies of either type contributed negligibly. Analysis of evidence generated sequentially during the pandemic indicated that larger RCTs drive our ability to make conclusive decisions regarding clinical benefit of each treatment, with limited inference drawn from RWS. These results suggest that when evaluating therapies in future pandemics, (1) large RCTs, especially platform studies, be deployed early; (2) any RWS should be large and should have adequate matching of known confounders and long follow-up; (3) reporting standards and data standards for primary endpoints, explanatory factors, and key subgroups should be improved; in addition, (4) appropriate incentives should be in place to enable access to patient-level data; and (5) an overall aggregate view of all available results should be available at any given time.

Association of treatments for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes in the United States from 2000 to 2016: Results from a multi-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, and non-surgical treatment are three options to treat acute appendicitis during pregnancy. Previous studies on the association of different treatment methods for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes have been limited by small sample sizes and residual confounding, especially with respect to hospital-level factors. This study aimed to investigate the association of treatment method for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes using a multi-level analysis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a large electronic health records database in the United States during the period 2000 to 2016. All pregnancies diagnosed with acute appendicitis and treated in participating hospitals during the study period were included. We conducted multi-level hierarchical logistic regression to analyze both individual- and hospital-level factors for abortion, preterm labor, and cesarean section. RESULTS: A total of 10,271 acute appendicitis during pregnancy were identified during the study period. Of them, 5,872 (57.2%) were treated by laparoscopic appendectomy, 1,403 (13.7%) by open appendectomy, and 2,996 (29.2%) by non-surgical treatment. Compared with open appendectomy, both laparoscopic appendectomy (adjusted OR, 0.6, 95% CI, 0.4, 0.9) and non-surgical treatment (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7) showed a decreased risk of preterm labor. Other important individual-level determinants of adverse pregnancy outcomes included maternal age, gestational hypertension, and anemia during pregnancy, the hospital-level determinant included the number of beds. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open appendectomy, both laparoscopic appendectomy and non-surgical treatment may be associated with a lower risk of preterm labor, without increased risks of abortion and cesarean section.

Risk of Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following a Myocardial Infarction in Patients Receiving Combined Clopidogrel and Proton Pump Inhibitor Treatment: A Nested Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of potential interactions between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel have been debated for over a decade. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the association between combined clopidogrel-PPI treatment and the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and three secondary outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted within Cerner Corporation's Health Facts® database. A retrospective cohort of patients who experienced a first MI and started clopidogrel treatment was created. Within this cohort, patients experiencing a second MI (cases) were matched with up to five controls. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Findings were compared with those obtained from models with three negative control exposure drugs: H2 receptor antagonists, prasugrel, and ticagrelor. RESULTS: In total, 2890 recurrent MI cases were identified within 12 months following entry into the cohort of clopidogrel users (N = 52,006). aOR for PPI use versus non-use among clopidogrel users was 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.23]. Similar ORs were obtained for secondary endpoints. A positive association between combined use of clopidogrel/PPIs and increased risk of MI was seen in the group aged 80-89 years (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.05-1.51). No associations with MI were observed for (1) H2 receptor antagonist use versus non-use among clopidogrel users or (2) PPI use versus non-use among prasugrel users or among ticagrelor users. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings do not support a significant adverse clinical impact of concomitant clopidogrel/PPI use by patients with MI. Nonetheless, investigation of the possible association seen in those aged 80-89 years may be warranted.

Trends in concomitant clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitor treatment among ACS inpatients, 2000-2016.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued three safety announcements between January 2009 and October 2010 warning against concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) due to a potential drug-drug interaction that may attenuate clopidogrel's antiplatelet activity. This primary objective of this study was to examine trends in concomitant clopidogrel/PPI use among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) inpatients in the US between 2000 and 2016, in relation to the FDA safety communications. METHODS: Adult inpatients with a primary diagnosis of ACS were identified from the Cerner Health Facts® database. The standardized (age, sex, race, and census region) prevalence of clopidogrel use with PPIs was calculated yearly and quarterly. Findings were stratified by PPIs' potential to inhibit clopidogrel's activity and by age. RESULTS: A total of 204,533 inpatients were identified. In 2008, the prevalence of concomitant clopidogrel and PPI treatment was 34.9%, decreasing to 24.4 and 16.4% in 2009 and 2010, respectively, with the decline being similar across age groups. Treatment with inhibiting PPIs (omeprazole and esomeprazole) and clopidogrel has continued to decrease since 2010, with a prevalence of 0.8% in 2016. A similar reduction was not observed with clopidogrel and non-inhibiting PPIs (pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and dexlansoprazole). During the FDA warning period, the combined treatment with clopidogrel and H2 receptor antagonists, an alternative to PPIs suggested by the FDA, temporarily increased from 7.8% in 2008 to 12.8 and 14.5% in 2009 and 2010, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that clinical practice recommendations made by the FDA were followed. Further research is needed to determine how changes in drug labels and the availability of new drugs may have influenced the observed trends.

Statistical methods for active pharmacovigilance, with applications to diabetes drugs.

Pharmacovigilance aims to identify adverse drug reactions using postmarket surveillance data under real-world conditions of use. Unlike passive pharmacovigilance, which is based on largely voluntary (and hence incomplete) spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions with limited information on patient characteristics, active pharmacovigilance is based on electronic health records containing detailed information about patient populations, thereby allowing consideration of modifying factors such as polypharmacy and comorbidity, as well as sociodemographic characteristics. With the present shift toward active pharmacovigilance, statistical methods capable of addressing the complexities of such data are needed. We describe four such methods here, and demonstrate their application in the analysis of a large retrospective cohort of diabetics taking anti-hyperglycemic medications that may increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

A novel dry powder inhaler: Effect of device design on dispersion performance.

The effect of device geometry and film characteristics on the performance of several passive flutter-induced dispersion DPI prototypes was investigated. Device resistance measurements indicated that the type of films, type of device geometry and specific device dimensions significantly affects the airflow resistance of the device. It was found that airflow resistance was positively correlated to the turbulence generated within the device. In addition, in vitro deposition studies indicated that the device geometry and film properties have a significant effect on aerosol dispersion performance. From these studies, selected prototypes were observed to have improved aerosolization performance without significant increases in device resistance. With further device design optimization, flutter induced dispersion DPI may be highly efficient mechanism for drug deaggregation and aerosolization.