Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries taking prescription drugs subject to price negotiations.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act authorizes Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs in 2026 and additional drugs thereafter. Understanding the sociodemographic and spending characteristics of beneficiaries taking these specific drugs could be important describing the impact of the legislation. OBJECTIVE: To describe sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use the 10 prescription drugs ("negotiated drugs") that will face Medicare drug price negotiations in 2026. METHODS: A 20% sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2020 (n = 10,224,642) was used. Sociodemographic and spending characteristics were descriptively reported for beneficiaries taking the negotiated drugs, including subgroups by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and by drug, and for Part D beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. RESULTS: Part D beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with Part D beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug overall had similar sociodemographic characteristics, more comorbidities (3.9 vs 2.2) and higher mean [median] Medicare ($33,882 [$18,251] vs $12,366 [$3,429]) and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending ($813 [$307] vs $441 [$160]). There was variation in characteristics by LIS status. The mean age was highest among non-LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug and beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug (76.2 vs 69.9 vs 71.4). Among beneficiaries using negotiated drugs, a higher percentage of LIS beneficiaries compared with non-LIS was female (59.7% vs 48.0%), was Black (20.9% vs 6.6%), and resided in lower-income areas (39.1% vs 20.3%). Mean [median] annual Part D OOP spending for negotiated drugs was $115 [$59] for beneficiaries with LIS and $1,475 [$1,204] for beneficiaries without LIS. There were also differences depending on which negotiated drug was used. Drugs for cancer and blood clots had the highest proportions of White users, whereas type 2 diabetes and heart failure drugs had the highest proportions of Black users and beneficiaries residing in lower-income areas. Annual Part D OOP costs were lowest for sitagliptin (LIS: $104 [$60], non-LIS: $1,391 [$1,153]) and highest for ibrutinib (LIS: $649 [$649], non-LIS: $6,449 [$6,867]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, 24% (22% to 76%) had more than $2,000 in OOP costs. CONCLUSIONS: Inflation Reduction Act OOP spending caps and LIS expansion will lower prescription drug costs for beneficiaries with OOP costs exceeding $2,000 who are mostly White and live in higher-income areas, insulin users who are disproportionately Black with multiple chronic conditions, and beneficiaries with low incomes. However, these provisions will not impact the 76% of non-LIS beneficiaries using negotiated drugs who have OOP costs that are still substantial but below $2,000. Negotiations could reduce OOP costs through reduced coinsurance payments for this group, which is older and has more chronic conditions compared with beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. Part D plan design, spending, and utilization changes should be monitored after negotiation to determine if further solutions are needed to lower OOP costs for this group.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.

Importance: Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising. Objective: To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics. Exposures: Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug. Results: The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales. Conclusions and Relevance: Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Inclusion of Participants with CKD and Other Kidney-Related Considerations during Clinical Drug Development: Landscape Analysis of Anticancer Agents Approved from 2015 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has prioritized efforts to expand availability of therapies, including anticancer agents, for patients with CKD. US Food and Drug Administration Guidance recommends inclusion of study participants with CKD in clinical trials, improving pharmacokinetic characterization in people with decreased GFR, and using contemporary GFR assessment methods during drug development. We performed a landscape analysis of anticancer agents approved from 2015 to 2019 to evaluate inclusion of study participants with CKD and GFR assessment methods used during drug development and subsequent translation to kidney-related safety and dosing data in product labeling. METHODS: Oncology drugs approved from 2015 to 2019 and associated pivotal trials were identified. We evaluated inclusion of study participants with CKD in pivotal trials and pharmacokinetic analyses, investigated GFR assessment methods used for pivotal trial eligibility and renal pharmacokinetic analyses, and identified kidney-related adverse drug event and dosing information. RESULTS: A total of 55 drugs and 74 pivotal trials were included. Of the pivotal trials, 95% contained kidney-related eligibility criteria, including 68% with GFR-based eligibility. The median lower limit of GFR required for inclusion was 45 ml/min or ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed in CKD stages 4-5 and hemodialysis for only 29% and 6% of drugs, respectively. Estimated creatinine clearance was used in over 60% and 80% of pivotal trials and pharmacokinetic analyses, respectively. Reporting of kidney-related adverse drug events was highly variable. Product labeling for 49% of drugs contained no kidney dosing information. CONCLUSIONS: Study participants with CKD continue to be excluded from anticancer drug development, and GFR estimation in pivotal trials and renal pharmacokinetic analyses remains imprecise and heterogeneous. Furthermore, kidney-related safety and dosing information is scarcely and inconsistently presented.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Among Adults With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: While clinical guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) over warfarin to treat isolated nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, guidelines are silent regarding nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treatment among individuals with cancer, reflecting the paucity of evidence in this setting. We quantified relative risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding (primary outcomes), and all-cause and cardiovascular death (secondary outcomes) among older individuals with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation comparing DOACs and warfarin. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and linked US Medicare data from 2010 through 2016, and included individuals diagnosed with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who newly initiated DOAC or warfarin. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to control confounding. We used competing risk regression for primary outcomes and cardiovascular death, and Cox proportional hazard regression for all-cause death. RESULTS: Among 7675 individuals included in the cohort, 4244 (55.3%) received DOACs and 3431 (44.7%) warfarin. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there was no statistically significant difference among DOAC and warfarin users in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (1.24 versus 1.19 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 1.41 [95% CI, 0.92-2.14]), major bleeding (3.08 versus 4.49 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17]), and cardiovascular death (1.88 versus 3.14 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI, 0.59-0.1.13]). DOAC users had significantly lower risk of all-cause death (7.09 versus 13.3 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94]) compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with cancer and atrial fibrillation exposed to DOACs had similar risks of stroke and systemic embolism and major bleeding as those exposed to warfarin. Relative to warfarin, DOAC use was associated with a similar risk of cardiovascular death and a lower risk of all-cause death.

Distribution of Abatement Funds Arising From US Opioid Litigation.

This Viewpoint discusses the settlement agreements reached against several major pharmaceutical distributors resulting from the US opioid epidemic and how those funds will be distributed amongst the states.

Use of prescription medications with cardiovascular adverse effects among older adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Many commonly used prescription medications have cardiovascular adverse effects, yet the cumulative risk of cardiovascular events associated with the concurrent use of these medications is unknown. We examined the association between the concurrent use of prescription medications with known risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) ("MACE medications") and the risk of such events among older adults. METHODS: A multi-center, population-based study from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of a cohort of 3669 community-dwelling adults aged 61-86 years with no history of cardiovascular disease who reported the use of at least one medication between September 2006 and August 2013 were followed up until August 2015. Exposure defined as time-varying and time-fixed use of 1, 2 or ≥3 MACE medications with non-MACE medications serving as negative control. Primary outcome was incident MACE defined as coronary artery revascularization, myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, there was an increased risk of MACE associated with use of 1, 2, or ≥3 MACE medications (1 MACE: hazards ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.57); 2 MACE: HR 1.89, CI 1.42-2.53; ≥3 MACE: HR 2.22, CI 1.61-3.07) compared to use of non-MACE medications. These associations persisted in propensity score-matched analyses and among new users of MACE medications, never users of cardiovascular medications and subgroups of participants with increased risk of MACE. There was no association between the number of non-MACE medications used and MACE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this community-based cohort of older adults with no prior cardiovascular disease, the use of MACE medications was independently and consistently associated with an increased risk of such events in a dose-response fashion.

Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the US healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. METHODS: We built a partitioned survival model based on a network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials with 7287 patients aged 36 to 94 years between 2004 and 2018 to predict patient health trajectories by treatment. We tested parameter uncertainties with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule and adopted generic drug prices when available. We measured cost-effectiveness by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean costs were approximately $392 000 with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and approximately $415 000, $464 000, $597 000, and $959 000 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 3.38 with ADT alone and 3.92, 4.76, 3.92, and 5.01 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. As add-on therapy to ADT, docetaxel had an ICER of $42 069 per QALY over ADT alone; abiraterone acetate had an ICER of $58 814 per QALY over docetaxel; apalutamide had an ICER of $1 979 676 per QALY over abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide was dominated. At a willingness to pay below $50 000 per QALY, docetaxel plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment; at any willingness to pay between $50 000 and $200 000 per QALY, abiraterone acetate plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the value of abiraterone acetate plus ADT given its relative cost-effectiveness to other systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Use of oral anticoagulants among individuals with cancer and atrial fibrillation in the United States, 2010-2016.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation among patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation is challenging due to elevated risk of bleeding and stroke. We characterized use of oral anticoagulants among patients with cancer and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data and included patients with cancer aged ≥66 years with an incident diagnosis of NVAF from 2010 to 2016. We used a Cox proportional hazard model and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with anticoagulant use versus no use and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin use, respectively. RESULTS: Of 27,702 patients with cancer and NVAF, 4469 (16.1%) used DOACs and 3577 (12.9%) used warfarin. Among 8046 anticoagulant users, DOACs use increased from 21.8% in 2011 to 76.2% in 2016, with a corresponding decline in warfarin use from 78.2% to 23.8%. Nearly 7 out of 10 patients with cancer and NVAF did not initiate anticoagulation in 2016. Anticoagulant use was more likely among those with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.90 for score ≥6 vs. 1) or with lower HAS-BLED scores (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.67-2.30 for score 1 vs. ≥6). Among anticoagulant users, DOAC use was less likely than warfarin in those with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (odds ratio [OR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.84 for score ≥6 vs. 1). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 7 out of 10 patients with cancer and NVAF did not receive anticoagulation. Use of DOACs increased from 2010 to 2016, with a corresponding decline in warfarin use. DOACs are used less than warfarin among those at higher risk of stroke.

Predictors of new persistent opioid use after benign hysterectomy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial reductions in the past decade, prescription opioids continue to cause widespread morbidity and mortality in the United States. Little is known regarding patterns and predictors of opioid use among women undergoing benign hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the incidence and predictors of new persistent opioid use after benign hysterectomy among opioid-naïve women from a set of demographic, operative, and opioid prescription characteristics of patients. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified women undergoing benign hysterectomy from 2011 to 2016 using a validated national insurance claims database (IBM MarketScan Commercial Database). After excluding women with prevalent opioid use (from 365 to 31 days preoperatively), we identified patients who received a perioperative opioid prescription (30 days before to 14 days after hysterectomy) and evaluated them for new persistent opioid use, defined as at least 1 prescription from 15 to 90 days and at least 1 prescription from 91 to 365 days postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine demographic, clinical, operative, and opioid prescription-related factors associated with new persistent use. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, and Clinical Classification Software codes were used to identify hysterectomies, preoperative pain and psychiatric diagnoses, surgical indications, and surgical complications included as covariates. RESULTS: We identified 114,260 women who underwent benign hysterectomy and were not prevalent opioid users, of which 93,906 (82.2%) received at least 1 perioperative opioid prescription. Of 93,906 women, 4334 (4.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Logistic regression demonstrated that new persistent use odds is significantly increased by younger age (18-34 years; adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.30), southern geographic location (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.79-2.27), preoperative psychiatric and pain disorders (anxiety: adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.33]; arthritis: adjusted odds ratio, 1.30 [95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.40]), >1 perioperative prescription (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.88), mood disorder medication use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64), tobacco smoking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.89), and surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.00). Although statistically nonsignificant, total morphine milligram equivalent of ≥300 in the first perioperative prescription increased persistent use likelihood by 9% (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.17). Dispensing of a first perioperative prescription before the surgery, as opposed to after, increased new persistent use odds by 61% (95% confidence interval, 1.50-1.72). Each additional perioperative day covered by a prescription increased the likelihood of persistent use by 2% (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.03). In contrast, minimally invasive hysterectomy (laparoscopic: adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.88]; vaginal: adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.93]) and a more recent surgery year (2016 vs reference 2011: adjusted odds ratio 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.65) significantly decreased its likelihood. CONCLUSION: New persistent opioid use after hysterectomy was associated with several patient, operative, and opioid prescription-related factors. Considering these factors may be beneficial in counseling patients and shared decision-making about perioperative prescription to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Comparison of Treatments for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: For nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), 3 drugs under patent protection-apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide-were approved based on randomized, placebo-controlled trials; 1 drug with generic availability, abiraterone acetate, showed efficacy in a single-arm trial and is commonly prescribed. Lacking head-to-head trials, the optimal treatment for nmCRPC is unknown, despite widely varied treatment costs. We compared the efficacy and safety of nmCRPC treatments. METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases, regulatory documents, and trial registries for nmCRPC trials. We included published results and, when available, original data. We performed matching-adjusted indirect comparison and network meta-analysis and compared treatments regarding metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: We analyzed 5 trials with 4360 participants. Compared with placebo, abiraterone acetate engendered the lowest hazard of metastasis and death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.12-0.41), followed by apalutamide (HR = 0.28, 95% CrI = 0.23-0.34), enzalutamide (HR = 0.30, 95% CrI = 0.25-0.36), and darolutamide (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.34-0.49); darolutamide led to the lowest hazard of death (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.53-0.90), followed by enzalutamide (HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.61-0.87) and apalutamide (HR = 0.75, 95% CrI = 0.59-0.95); darolutamide resulted in the lowest odds of serious adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32, 95% CrI = 1.02-1.70), followed by enzalutamide (OR =1.43, 95% CrI = 1.08-1.89), apalutamide (OR = 1.58, 95% CrI = 1.23-2.03), and abiraterone acetate (OR = 1.94, 95% CrI = 1.17-3.22). CONCLUSIONS: For nmCRPC, darolutamide offered optimal efficacy and safety among approved drugs, and abiraterone acetate may offer comparable metastasis-free survival benefit with cost savings from generic availability. Future research is needed to more fully examine the benefit of abiraterone acetate.

Long-term use of immunosuppressive medicines and in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes: a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals take long-term immunosuppressive medications. We evaluated whether these individuals have worse outcomes when hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with non-immunosuppressed individuals. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), the largest longitudinal electronic health record repository of patients in hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in the USA, between Jan 1, 2020, and June 11, 2021, within 42 health systems. We compared adults with immunosuppressive medications used before admission to adults without long-term immunosuppression. We considered immunosuppression overall, as well as by 15 classes of medication and three broad indications for immunosuppressive medicines. We used Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation, with the competing risk of death. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate HRs for in-hospital death. Models were adjusted using doubly robust propensity score methodology. FINDINGS: Among 231 830 potentially eligible adults in the N3C repository who were admitted to hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 during the study period, 222 575 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 59 years [SD 19]; 111 269 [50%] male). The most common comorbidities were diabetes (23%), pulmonary disease (17%), and renal disease (13%). 16 494 (7%) patients had long-term immunosuppression with medications for diverse conditions, including rheumatological disease (33%), solid organ transplant (26%), or cancer (22%). In the propensity score matched cohort (including 12 841 immunosuppressed patients and 29 386 non-immunosuppressed patients), immunosuppression was associated with a reduced risk of invasive ventilation (HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·83-0·96) and there was no overall association between long-term immunosuppression and the risk of in-hospital death. None of the 15 medication classes examined were associated with an increased risk of invasive mechanical ventilation. Although there was no statistically significant association between most drugs and in-hospital death, increases were found with rituximab for rheumatological disease (1·72, 1·10-2·69) and for cancer (2·57, 1·86-3·56). Results were generally consistent across subgroup analyses that considered race and ethnicity or sex, as well as across sensitivity analyses that varied exposure, covariate, and outcome definitions. INTERPRETATION: Among this cohort, with the exception of rituximab, there was no increased risk of mechanical ventilation or in-hospital death for the rheumatological, antineoplastic, or antimetabolite therapies examined. FUNDING: None.

Tobacco control policies and smoking cessation treatment utilization: A moderated mediation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco policies, including clean indoor air laws and cigarette taxes, increase smoking cessation in part by stimulating the use of cessation treatments. We explored whether the associations between tobacco policies and treatment use varies across sociodemographic groups. METHODS: We used data from 62,165 U.S. adult participants in the 2003 and 2010/11 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) who reported smoking cigarettes during the past-year. We built on prior structural equation models used to quantify the degree to which smoking cessation treatment use (prescription medications, nicotine replacement therapy, counseling/support groups, quitlines, and internet resources) mediated the association between clean indoor air laws, cigarette excise taxes, and recent smoking cessation. In the current study, we added selected moderators to each model to investigate whether associations between tobacco polices and smoking cessation treatment use varied by sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, and health insurance status. RESULTS: Associations between clean indoor air laws and the use of prescription medication and nicotine replacement therapies varied significantly between racial/ethnic, age, and education groups in 2003. However, none of these moderation effects remained significant in 2010/11. Higher cigarette excise taxes in 2010/2011 were associated with higher odds of using counseling among older adults and higher odds of using prescription medications among younger adults. No other moderator reached statistical significance. Smoking cessation treatments did not mediate the effect of taxes on smoking cessation in 2003 and were not included in these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic differences in associations between clean indoor air laws and smoking cessation treatment use have decreased from 2003 to 2010/11. In most cases, policies appear to stimulate smoking cessation treatment use similarly across varied sociodemographic groups.

Use of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and Dexamethasone Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the United States : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To use the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large, multicenter, longitudinal cohort, to characterize the use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone, overall as well as across individuals, health systems, and time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 43 health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 137 870 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 137 870 persons hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, 8754 (6.3%) received hydroxychloroquine, 29 272 (21.2%) remdesivir, and 53 909 (39.1%) dexamethasone during the study period. Since the release of results from the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial in mid-June, approximately 78% to 84% of people who have had invasive mechanical ventilation have received dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased during March 2020, peaking at 42%, and started declining by April 2020. By contrast, remdesivir and dexamethasone use gradually increased over the study period. Dexamethasone and remdesivir use varied substantially across health centers (intraclass correlation coefficient, 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir). LIMITATION: Because most N3C data contributors are academic medical centers, findings may not reflect the experience of community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone, an evidence-based treatment of COVID-19, may be underused among persons who are mechanically ventilated. The use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varied across health systems, suggesting variation in patient case mix, drug access, treatment protocols, and quality of care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institute on Aging.

Quality of Preventive and Chronic Illness Care for Insured Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Nearly all initiatives to improve care for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) have focused on improving OUD identification and treatment. Whether individuals with OUD have lower quality of care than individuals without OUD remains unclear. Objective: To measure quality of non-OUD preventive and chronic illness care and care coordination for individuals with OUD compared with individuals without OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of deidentified data on outpatients throughout the US was conducted. Claims for 79 372 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees aged 18 years or older with diagnosis codes for OUD between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, and 46 601 individuals without OUD were included in the analysis. Exposure: Diagnosis of OUD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality indicator performance was calculated, using claims for individuals with OUD and matched comparators without OUD. Within 3 domains of outpatient care quality (preventive care, chronic illness care, and care coordination), 6 indicators used in accountability programs were selected. Performance for individuals with and without OUD was compared, and logistic regression was used to analyze sociodemographic and comorbidity characteristics associated with higher quality of health care. Results: The study included 125 973 individuals, including 69 466 (55.1%) women and 78 225 (62.1%) White individuals, with a mean (SD) age of 59.0 (16.1) years. For the preventive care measure examining breast cancer screening, performance for the OUD cohort was 55.4% (95% CI, 54.7%-56.0%) compared with 65.6% (95% CI, 64.4%-66.7%) for individuals without OUD (P < .001). Quality of care for adherence to statin therapy was lower for individuals with OUD (70.4%; 95% CI, 68.7%-72.1%) compared with individuals without OUD (76.7%; 95% CI, 74.4%-78.7%) (P < .001) and for the hemoglobin A1c testing indicator (OUD: 80.9%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.5%; comparator: 85.8%; 95% CI, 84.9%-86.8%; P < .001). Care coordination quality also was lower for individuals with OUD compared with those without OUD for mental health follow-up (OUD: 45.3%; 95% CI, 44.6%-46.0%; comparator: 52.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-55.0%; P < .001) and for potentially avoidable hospitalizations for chronic conditions (OUD: 11.4%; 95% CI, 11.2%-11.7%; comparator: 8.8%; 95% CI, 8.3%-9.2%; P < .001) and diabetes, where a lower score indicates higher quality (OUD: 2.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-2.5%; comparator: 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.1%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that individuals with OUD have moderately lower quality of care across preventive and chronic illness care and care coordination for non-OUD care compared with individuals without OUD. More attention to measurement and improvement of non-OUD care for these individuals is needed.

Comparative effectiveness of biologics and targeted therapies for psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify comparative effectiveness of interleukin (IL)-12/23 antagonist (ustekinumab), IL-17A antagonists (secukinumab and ixekizumab), PDE4 inhibitor (apremilast) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: We adapted a deidentified claims-based algorithm validated for inflammatory arthritis treatments to compare treatments among a retrospective cohort of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with PsA from October 2013 to April 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Main outcomes include (1) treatment effectiveness, based on: adherence, adding or switching biologic or PDE4, addition of new non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, increase in biologic or PDE4 dose or frequency and glucocorticoid use and (2) percentage of each group fulfilling the effectiveness algorithm. We used Poisson regression with robust variance stratified by prior PsA biologic exposure and adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 2730 individuals with PsA, 327 received IL-12/23, 138 IL-17A's, 624 PDE4 and 1641 TNF-α's. Effectiveness criteria were fulfilled among 63 (19.3%) IL-12/23 recipients, 40 (29.0%) IL-17A recipients, 160 (25.6%) PDE4 recipients and 530 (32.3%) TNF-α recipients. Among biologic-naïve individuals, IL-12/23 was less effective than TNF-α's with fully adjusted relative risk (aRR) compared with TNF-α's of 0.63 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.89). Among biologic-experienced individuals, PDE4 recipients were less effective than TNF-α's (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: TNF-α's appeared more effective than IL-12/23's for biologic-naïve individuals, and PDE4's for biologic-experienced individuals. These results may help inform treatment choice for individuals with PsA.

Comparison of Time to Clinical Improvement With vs Without Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Clinical effectiveness data on remdesivir are urgently needed, especially among diverse populations and in combination with other therapies. Objective: To examine whether remdesivir administered with or without corticosteroids for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with more rapid clinical improvement in a racially/ethnically diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted from March 4 to August 29, 2020, in a 5-hospital health system in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, area. Of 2483 individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection assessed by polymerase chain reaction, those who received remdesivir were matched to infected individuals who did not receive remdesivir using time-invariant covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, body mass index, and do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate orders) and time-dependent covariates (ratio of peripheral blood oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen, blood pressure, pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, C-reactive protein level, complete white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, albumin level, alanine aminotransferase level, glomerular filtration rate, dimerized plasmin fragment D [D-dimer] level, and oxygen device). An individual in the remdesivir group with k days of treatment was matched to a control patient who stayed in the hospital at least k days (5 days maximum) beyond the matching day. Exposures: Remdesivir treatment with or without corticosteroid administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of clinical improvement (hospital discharge or decrease of 2 points on the World Health Organization severity score), and the secondary outcome, mortality at 28 days. An additional outcome was clinical improvement and time to death associated with combined remdesivir and corticosteroid treatment. Results: Of 2483 consecutive admissions, 342 individuals received remdesivir, 184 of whom also received corticosteroids and 158 of whom received remdesivir alone. For these 342 patients, the median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-69 years), 189 (55.3%) were men, and 276 (80.7%) self-identified as non-White race/ethnicity. Remdesivir recipients had a shorter time to clinical improvement than matched controls without remdesivir treatment (median, 5.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-8.0 days] vs 7.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-10.0 days]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.22-1.79]). Remdesivir recipients had a 28-day mortality rate of 7.7% (22 deaths) compared with 14.0% (40 deaths) among matched controls, but this difference was not statistically significant in the time-to-death analysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.28). The addition of corticosteroids to remdesivir was not associated with a reduced hazard of death at 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.67-5.57). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness research study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19, receipt of remdesivir was associated with faster clinical improvement in a cohort of predominantly non-White patients. Remdesivir plus corticosteroid administration did not reduce the time to death compared with remdesivir administered alone.