A Principled Approach to Characterize and Analyze Partially Observed Confounder Data from Electronic Health Records.

Objective: Partially observed confounder data pose challenges to the statistical analysis of electronic health records (EHR) and systematic assessments of potentially underlying missingness mechanisms are lacking. We aimed to provide a principled approach to empirically characterize missing data processes and investigate performance of analytic methods. Methods: Three empirical sub-cohorts of diabetic SGLT2 or DPP4-inhibitor initiators with complete information on HbA1c, BMI and smoking as confounders of interest (COI) formed the basis of data simulation under a plasmode framework. A true null treatment effect, including the COI in the outcome generation model, and four missingness mechanisms for the COI were simulated: completely at random (MCAR), at random (MAR), and two not at random (MNAR) mechanisms, where missingness was dependent on an unmeasured confounder and on the value of the COI itself. We evaluated the ability of three groups of diagnostics to differentiate between mechanisms: 1)-differences in characteristics between patients with or without the observed COI (using averaged standardized mean differences [ASMD]), 2)-predictive ability of the missingness indicator based on observed covariates, and 3)-association of the missingness indicator with the outcome. We then compared analytic methods including "complete case", inverse probability weighting, single and multiple imputation in their ability to recover true treatment effects. Results: The diagnostics successfully identified characteristic patterns of simulated missingness mechanisms. For MAR, but not MCAR, the patient characteristics showed substantial differences (median ASMD 0.20 vs 0.05) and consequently, discrimination of the prediction models for missingness was also higher (0.59 vs 0.50). For MNAR, but not MAR or MCAR, missingness was significantly associated with the outcome even in models adjusting for other observed covariates. Comparing analytic methods, multiple imputation using a random forest algorithm resulted in the lowest root-mean-squared-error. Conclusion: Principled diagnostics provided reliable insights into missingness mechanisms. When assumptions allow, multiple imputation with nonparametric models could help reduce bias.

Risk of malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer in rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating methotrexate versus hydroxychloroquine: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the incidence rate of skin cancer associated with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine in older adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: RA patients aged ≥65 years who initiated methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine as their first disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The primary outcome was new occurrence of any skin cancer (i.e. malignant melanoma or non-melanoma skin cancer; NMSC) based on validated algorithms (positive predictive value >83%). Secondary outcomes were malignant melanoma, NMSC, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). We estimated the incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) for each outcome in the 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine groups. RESULTS: We included 24,577 PS-matched pairs of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine initiators. Compared with hydroxychloroquine (IR 25.20/1,000 person-years), methotrexate initiators (IR 26.21/1,000 person-years) had a similar risk of any skin cancer [HR 1.03 -(95%CI 0.92, 1.14)] over a mean follow-up of 388 days. The HR (95%CI) associated with methotrexate was 1.39 (0.87, 2.21) for malignant melanoma, 1.01(0.90, 1.12) for NMSC, 1.37 (1.13, 1.66) for BCC, and 0.79 (0.63, 0.99) for SCC compared with hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of older RA patients initiating methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine as their first DMARD, we found no difference in the risk of skin cancer including malignant melanoma and NMSC. However, for specific components of NMSC, methotrexate initiators had higher risk of BCC but lower risk of SCC compared with hydroxychloroquine initiators.

Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Among Older Adults With Heart Failure and With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibitor vs Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor in Routine Clinical Care.

BACKGROUND: The acute hemodynamic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), may result in early changes in kidney function, raising concerns about acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those who are naïve to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using U.S. Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥ 65 years newly initiating ARNI or RASi, with no prior use of either drug class, were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization due to AKI as the primary discharge diagnosis, and the secondary outcome included AKI as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. AKI risks were described under an as-treated follow-up approach, with censoring on treatment discontinuation, switch, insurance disenrollment, death, or administrative censoring as well as an intent-to-treat approach. Propensity-score-based fine-stratification weighting was used to account for potential confounding by 81 pre-exposure characteristics. Cumulative incidence functions were used to report absolute risks, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to provide hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 27,166 patients with a mean (SD) age of 73 (7.3) years, and 4155 (15.3%) were initiating ARNI. After propensity score weighting, the 180-day cumulative incidence was 2.7% (2.4%-3.1%) among RASi initiators and 2.7% (2.2%-3.5%) among ARNI initiators for the primary outcome, and it was 6.5% (6.0%-7.1%) and 6.1% (5.2%-7.1%), respectively, for the secondary outcome under as-treated follow-up. HR (95% CI) comparing ARNI with RASi were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-1.08) for the secondary outcome. Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, ARNI treatment was not associated with higher rates of AKI than RASi treatment. These results provide reassurance for providers considering ARNI initiation in older patients who are RASi-naïve.

Tofacitinib and Risk of Malignancy: Results From the Safety of Tofacitinib in Routine Care Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis (STAR-RA) Study.

OBJECTIVES: Results of the ORAL Surveillance safety trial have indicated that there is an increased risk for the development of malignancies with tofacitinib therapy when compared to treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). This study was undertaken to further examine this safety concern in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a real-world setting. METHODS: Using US insurance claims data from Optum Clinformatics (2012-2020), IBM MarketScan Research Databases (2012-2018), and Medicare (parts A, B, and D, 2012-2017), we created 2 cohorts of RA patients who had initiated treatment with tofacitinib or TNFi. The first cohort, designated the real-world evidence (RWE) cohort, included RA patients from routine care. For the second cohort, designated the randomized controlled trial (RCT)-duplicate cohort, we emulated the inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied in the ORAL Surveillance trial of tofacitinib, which allowed us to assess the comparability of our results with the results of that trial. Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score fine-stratification weighting were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the risk of any malignancy (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). Database-specific estimates were meta-analyzed using fixed-effects models with inverse-variance weighting. RESULTS: The RWE cohort consisted of 83,295 patients, including 10,504 patients (12.6%) who received treatment with tofacitinib. The pooled weighted HR for the primary outcome of any malignancy associated with tofacitinib treatment compared to any malignancy associated with TNFi therapy was 1.01 (95% CI 0.83, 1.22) in the RWE cohort and 1.17 (95% CI 0.85, 1.62) in the RCT-duplicate cohort (compared to the ORAL Surveillance trial HR of 1.48 [95% CI 1.04, 2.09]). CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence of an increased risk of malignancy development with tofacitinib therapy, in comparison with TNFi therapy, in RA patients treated in a real-world setting. However, our results cannot rule out the possibility of an increase in risk that may accrue with a longer duration of treatment with tofacitinib.

Predictors of Treatment Change Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with TNF Inhibitors as First-Line Biologic Agent in the USA: A Cohort Study from Longitudinal Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Previous observational studies utilizing administrative claims data have largely been unable to consider clinical factors that may be related to patterns of drug use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: To understand predictors of treatment changes following initiation of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) using nation-wide electronic health record (EHR) data in the USA. METHODS: The Optum Immunology Condition EHR data (01/01/2011-09/30/2019) was used to identify a population of adult patients with RA initiating a TNFi as the first line biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). The primary outcome was any treatment change during the 1-year post-index period defined as cycling to a different TNFi or switching to non-TNFi biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of TNFi cycling and switching, examined separately. To identify predictors of DMARD treatment changes, we used a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. Model c-statistics and odds ratios (ORs, 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of predictors were reported. RESULTS: We identified 24,871 patients with RA who initiated a TNFi. The mean age was 55.5 (± 13.7) years and 77.2% were female. Among the TNFi initiators, 22.2% experienced TNFi cycling or switching during the 1-year follow-up time. Predictors that are associated with higher likelihood of TNFi cycling or switching included female gender (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.16-1.36) and glucocorticoid use (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.21-1.40). In contrast, inflammatory bowel disease (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78), psoriasis (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95), recent use of methotrexate (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.97), and vitamin D intake (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) were negatively associated with TNFi cycling or switch. CONCLUSIONS: Gender, glucocorticoid use, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, and vitamin D intake were identified as significant predictors of TNFi cycling or switching for TNFi initiators in the RA population. Predicting treatment change remains challenging even with large detailed EHR data. This study aimed to identify key determinants of treatment changes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as their first-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in routine care settings using a US nation-wide longitudinal electronic health record (EHR). Among 24,871 patients with RA who initiated a TNFi, 22.2% experienced TNFi cycling or switching during the 1-year follow-up time. Female patients and those who used glucocorticoids were more likely to experience TNFi cycling or switching, whereas inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, recent methotrexate use, and vitamin D intake were negatively associated with the outcome. However, predicting treatment change remains challenging even with larger detailed EHR data potentially due to unmeasured factors such as prescriber's preference or patient's belief in the medication.

Decreased risk of treatment failure with vedolizumab and thiopurines combined compared with vedolizumab monotherapy in Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVE: While infliximab combined to thiopurines is more effective than infliximab monotherapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and UC, the impact of adding thiopurines to vedolizumab remains controversial. We emulated two target trials comparing the effectiveness of combination therapy versus vedolizumab monotherapy in CD and UC. DESIGN: Based on two US and the French nationwide healthcare databases, patients with CD and UC who initiated vedolizumab were identified. The study methodology, including confounding adjustment and outcome definitions, were previously validated in successful emulations of the SONIC and SUCCESS trials. Risk ratios for treatment failure based on hospitalisation or surgery related to disease activity, treatment switch, or prolonged corticosteroids use, were estimated after 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching. RESULTS: Among a total of 10 299 vedolizumab users, 804 CD and 1088 UC pairs of combination therapy versus vedolizumab monotherapy users were PS matched. Treatment failure occurred at week 26 in 236 (29.3%) and 376 (34.3%) patients with CD and at week 16 in 236 (21.7%) and 263 (24.2%) patients with UC initiating combination therapy and vedolizumab monotherapy, respectively. The risk of treatment failure was decreased with combination therapy compared with vedolizumab monotherapy in CD (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.98) and to a lesser extent in UC (RR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.05). Findings were consistent across databases. CONCLUSION: Using validated methodologies, combination therapy with vedolizumab and thiopurines was associated with lower treatment failure compared with vedolizumab monotherapy in CD but not UC across the USA and France.

Comparative Risk of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementia Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Targeted Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Agents.

Importance: Cytokine signaling, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin (IL)-6, through the Janus-kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway, was hypothesized to attenuate the risk of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) in the Drug Repurposing for Effective Alzheimer Medicines (DREAM) initiative based on multiomics phenotyping. Objective: To evaluate the association between treatment with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept and risk of incident ADRD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among US Medicare fee-for-service patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 65 years and older from 2007 to 2017. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on initiation of tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors compared with a common comparator abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). Analyses were conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was onset of ADRD based on diagnosis codes evaluated in 4 alternative analysis schemes: (1) an as-treated follow-up approach, (2) an as-started follow-up approach incorporating a 6-month induction period, (3) incorporating a 6-month symptom to diagnosis period to account for misclassification of ADRD onset, and (4) identifying ADRD through symptomatic prescriptions and diagnosis codes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression after adjustment for 79 preexposure characteristics through propensity score matching. Results: After 1:1 propensity score matching to patients using abatacept, a total of 22 569 propensity score-matched patient pairs, including 4224 tofacitinib pairs (mean [SD] age 72.19 [5.65] years; 6945 [82.2%] women), 6369 tocilizumab pairs (mean [SD] age 72.01 [5.46] years; 10 105 [79.4%] women), and 11 976 TNF inhibitor pairs (mean [SD] age 72.67 [5.91] years; 19 710 [82.3%] women), were assessed. Incidence rates of ADRD varied from 2 to 18 per 1000 person-years across analyses schemes. There were no statistically significant associations of ADRD with tofacitinib (analysis 1: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51]; analysis 2: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.53-1.13]; analysis 3: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.72-2.33]; analysis 4: HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.21-1.20]), tocilizumab (analysis 1: HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.55-1.21]; analysis 2: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.81-1.35]; analysis 3: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.75-1.96]; analysis 4: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.44-1.39]), or TNF inhibitors (analysis 1: HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.72-1.20]; analysis 2: HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]; analysis 3: HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.86-1.48]; analysis 4: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.60-1.37]) compared with abatacept. Results from prespecified subgroup analysis by age, sex, and baseline cardiovascular disease were consistent except in patients with cardiovascular disease, for whom there was a potentially lower risk of ADRD with TNF inhibitors vs abatacept, but only in analyses 2 and 4 (analysis 1: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.50-1.16]; analysis 2: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]; analysis 3: HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.65-1.61]; analysis 4: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.98]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study did not find any association of risk of ADRD in patients treated with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept.

Tofacitinib and risk of cardiovascular outcomes: results from the Safety of TofAcitinib in Routine care patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (STAR-RA) study.

OBJECTIVES: Recent results from 'ORAL Surveillance' trial have raised concerns regarding the cardiovascular safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We further examined this safety concern in the real-world setting. METHODS: We created two cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with tofacitinib or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFI) using deidentified data from Optum Clinformatics (2012-2020), IBM MarketScan (2012-2018) and Medicare (parts A, B and D, 2012-2017) claims databases: (1) A 'real-world evidence (RWE) cohort' consisting of routine care patients and (2) A 'randomised controlled trial (RCT)-duplicate cohort' mimicking inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL surveillance trial to calibrate results against the trial findings. Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score fine stratification weighting were used to estimate HR and 95% CIs for composite outcome of myocardial infarction and stroke and accounting for 76 potential confounders. Database-specific effect estimates were pooled using fixed effects models with inverse-variance weighting. RESULTS: In the RWE cohort, 102 263 patients were identified of whom 12 852 (12.6%) initiated tofacitinib. The pooled weighted HR (95% CI) comparing tofacitinib with TNFI was 1.01 (0.83 to 1.23) in RWE cohort and 1.24 (0.90 to 1.69) in RCT-duplicate cohort which aligned closely with ORAL-surveillance results (HR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.94). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence for an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes with tofacitinib in patients with RA treated in the real-world setting; however, tofacitinib was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes, although statistically non-significant, in patients with RA with cardiovascular risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04772248.

Risk of Serious Infections With Vedolizumab Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of serious infections associated with vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is uncertain. We assessed the risk of serious infections associated with use of vedolizumab versus anti-TNF in patients with IBD, according to IBD subtype and previous exposure to anti-TNF. METHODS: Based on two U.S. nationwide commercial insurance databases and the French nationwide health insurance database, anti-TNF naïve and experienced patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) aged 18 years or older who initiated vedolizumab or an anti-TNF agent after 2010 were identified. Hazard ratios for serious infections comparing vedolizumab and anti-TNF were estimated in propensity score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Among 8768 vedolizumab and 26,656 anti-TNF initiators included after 1:4 variable ratio propensity score matching, 893 serious infections occurred during 37,725 person-years of follow-up. The risk of serious infections was not different between vedolizumab and anti-TNF in the overall IBD cohort (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0·79-1.13), while the risk was decreased for vedolizumab users in patients with UC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93), but not CD (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.38). In patients with UC, vedolizumab was consistently associated with lower risk of serious infections after exclusion of gastrointestinal infections (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: While the risk of serious infections associated with vedolizumab was not different compared to anti-TNF in the overall group of patients with IBD, the risk varied according to IBD subtype, by decreasing in patients with UC, but not CD. These findings may help to clarify the optimal position of vedolizumab in the therapeutic management of IBD.

Calibrating Real-World Evidence Studies Against Randomized Trials: Treatment Effectiveness of Infliximab in Crohn's Disease.

Real-world evidence (RWE) on the effectiveness of treatments in Crohn's disease (CD) derived from clinical practice data will help fill many evidence gaps left by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Emulating RCTs with healthcare database studies may calibrate RWE studies in CD. We aimed to emulate the SONIC trial on the effectiveness of infliximab in patients with CD using US and French healthcare claims data. SONIC had shown improved remission with combination therapy (i.e., infliximab plus thiopurines) compared with infliximab monotherapy. Using claims data (2004-2019) from commercially insured patients in the United States (IBM MarketScan and Optum) and France (Système National des Données de Santé (National Healthcare Data System) (SNDS)), we conducted a cohort study of patients with CD who initiated combination therapy and compared them with patients who initiated infliximab alone. The primary outcome was a composite end point of treatment failure including hospitalization or surgery related to CD, treatment switch, or continuation of corticosteroids 26 weeks after infliximab initiation. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated in propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts. We identified 1,437 PS-matched pairs of combination therapy vs. infliximab monotherapy users. As in SONIC, the risk of treatment failure was decreased with combination therapy in the overall cohort (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.82; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97 in SONIC). Findings were consistent across MarketScan, Optum, and SNDS databases: RR (95% CI), 0.83 (0.63-1.10), 0.66 (0.46-0.93), and 0.68 (0.57-0.82), as well as component end points. These robust findings highlight opportunities in RWE analysis for studying treatment effectiveness in patients with CD in clinical practice.

Risk of Hospitalization for Serious Infection After Initiation of Ustekinumab or Other Biologics in Patients With Psoriasis or Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of serious infections requiring hospitalization in patients with psoriasis (PsO) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating ustekinumab versus other biologics or apremilast. METHODS: In this multi-database cohort study, we identified patients with PsO/PsA who initiated therapy with adalimumab, apremilast, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, or ustekinumab between 2009 and 2018. The primary outcome measure was hospitalizations due to serious infections, which included bacterial, viral, or opportunistic infections. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) comparing each study drug to ustekinumab after applying propensity score fine stratification weights for confounding control in each database. Database-specific weighted HRs were combined by meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 123,383 patients with PsO/PsA who initiated one of the study drugs. During a total of 117,744 person-years of follow-up, 1,514 serious infections occurred with a crude incidence of 1.29 per 100 person-years. After propensity score fine stratification and weighting, the incidence rates of serious infection among ustekinumab initiators ranged from 0.59 to 0.95 per 100 person-years. Compared with ustekinumab, the combined weighted HRs (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) for serious infections were 1.66 (95% CI 1.34-2.06) for adalimumab, 1.42 (95% CI 1.02-1.96) for apremilast, 1.09 (95% CI 0.68-1.75) for certolizumab, 1.39 (95% CI 1.01-1.90) for etanercept, 1.74 (95% CI 1.00-3.03) for golimumab, 2.92 (95% CI 1.80-4.72) for infliximab, 2.98 (95% CI 1.20-7.41) for ixekizumab, and 1.84 (95% CI 1.24-2.72) for secukinumab. CONCLUSION: Other biologics and apremilast were associated with a 1.4- to 3-times higher risk of hospitalization for serious infections in PsO/PsA patients when compared to ustekinumab; this finding should be considered in the safety profile of these therapies when selecting appropriate treatment regimens in patients with PsO/PsA.

Secular Trends in the Pharmacologic Treatment of Osteoporosis and Malignancy-Related Bone Disease from 2009 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: New bone-directed therapies, including denosumab, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, emerged during the past decade, and recent trends in use of these therapies are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine temporal trends in bone-directed therapies. DESIGN: An open cohort study in a US commercial insurance database, January 2009 to March 2020. PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTIONS: All-users of bone-directed therapies age >50 years, users with osteoporosis, users with malignancies, and patients with recent (within 180 days) fractures at key osteoporotic sites. MAIN MEASURES: The percentage of each cohort with prescription dispensing or medication administration claims for each bone-directed therapy during each quarter of the study period. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 15.48 million prescription dispensings or medication administration claims from 1.46 million unique individuals (89% women, mean age 69 years). Among all users of bone-directed therapies, alendronate, and zoledronic acid use increased modestly (49 to 63% and 2 to 4%, respectively, during the study period). In contrast, denosumab use increased rapidly after approval in 2010, overtaking use of all other medications except alendronate by 2017 and reaching 16% of users by March 2020. Similar trends were seen in cohorts of osteoporosis, malignancy, and recent fractures. Importantly, use of any bone-directed therapy after fractures was low and declined from 15 to 8%. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of denosumab use outpaced growth of all other bone-directed therapies over the past decade. Treatment rates after osteoporotic fractures were low and declined over time, highlighting major failings in osteoporosis treatment in the US.

Medication Burden and Prescribing Patterns in Patients on Hemodialysis in the USA, 2013-2017.

INTRODUCTION: The medication burden of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis, a patient population with a high comorbidity burden and complex care requirements, is among the highest of any of the chronic diseases. The goal of this study was to describe the medication burden and prescribing patterns in a contemporary cohort of patients with ESRD on hemodialysis in the USA. METHODS: We used the United States Renal Data System database from January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, to quantify the medication burden of patients with ESRD on hemodialysis aged ≥18 years. We calculated the average number of prescription medications per patient during each respective year (January-December), number of medications within classes, including potentially harmful medications, and trends in the number of medications and classes over the 5-year study period. RESULTS: We included a total of 163,228 to 176,133 patients from 2013 to 2017. The overall medication burden decreased slightly, from a mean of 7.4 (SD 3.8) medications in 2013 to 6.8 (SD 3.6) medications in 2017. Prescribing of potentially harmful medications decreased over time (74.0% with at least one harmful medication class in 2013-68.5% in 2017). In particular, the prescribing of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, benzodiazepines, and opioids decreased from 2013 to 2017 (12.2%-6.3%, 23.4%-19.3%, and 60.0%-53.4%, respectively). This trend was consistent across subgroups of age, sex, race, and low-income subsidy status. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESRD on hemodialysis continued to have a high overall medication burden, with a slight reduction over time accompanied by a decrease in prescribing of several classes of harmful medications. Continued emphasis on assessment of appropriateness of high medication burden in patients with ESRD is needed to avoid exposure to potentially harmful or futile medications in this patient population.

Comparative Risk of Nonvertebral Fractures Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Biologic or Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the incidence rate of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures (NVFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating one of the nine biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). METHODS: We analyzed claims data from Optum (2008 to March 2019), Medicare, and MarketScan (2008-2017) to identify adults with RA who newly initiated b/tsDMARDs. Adalimumab was the most frequently used and was thus selected as a reference. The primary outcome was a composite of incident NVFs, including hip, humerus, pelvis, and wrist fractures, based on validated algorithms. We adjusted for greater than 70 potential confounders in each database through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Follow-up time started the day after cohort entry until the first occurrence of one of the following: outcome, treatment discontinuation, switching, nursing home admission, death, disenrollment, or end of study period. For each drug comparison, weighted Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses were conducted in patients switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to a different b/tsDMARD. RESULTS: A total of 134,693 b/tsDMARD initiators were identified across three databases. The adjusted HRs showed similar risk of composite NVFs in all b/tsDMARD exposures compared with adalimumab: abatacept, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30); certolizumab, HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.49); etanercept, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.89-1.40); golimumab, HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.39); infliximab, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.84-1.28); rituximab, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74-1.55); tocilizumab, HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.71-2.17); and tofacitinib, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64). Secondary analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSION: This multidatabase cohort study found no differences in the risk of NVFs across individual b/tsDMARDs for RA, which provides reassurance to physicians prescribing b/tsDMARDs, especially to patients at high risk of developing NVFs.

Effectiveness of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor treatment versus renin-angiotensin system blockade in older adults with heart failure in clinical care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) versus renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade alone in older adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using US Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥65 years were identified in two cohorts: (1) initiators of ARNI or RAS blockade alone (ACE inhibitor, ACEI; or angiotensin receptor blocker, ARB) and (2) switchers from an ACEI to either ARNI or ARB. HR with 95% CI from Cox proportional hazard regression and 1-year restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference with 95% CI were calculated for a composite outcome of time to first worsening heart failure event or all-cause mortality after adjustment for 71 pre-exposure characteristics through propensity score fine-stratification weighting. All analyses of initiator and switcher cohorts were conducted separately and then combined using fixed effects. RESULTS: 51 208 patients with a mean age of 76 years were included, with 16 193 in the ARNI group. Adjusted HRs comparing ARNI with RAS blockade alone were 0.92 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.00) among initiators and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) among switchers, with a combined estimate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89). Adjusted 1-year RMST difference (95% CI) was 4 days in the initiator cohort (-1 to 9) and 12 days (8 to 17) in the switcher cohort, resulting in a pooled estimate of 9 days (6 to 12) favouring ARNI. CONCLUSION: ARNI treatment was associated with lower risk of a composite effectiveness endpoint compared with RAS blockade alone in older adults with HFrEF.

The Patterns of Use of Medications for Inflammatory Bowel Disease During Pregnancy in the US and Sweden Are Changing.

BACKGROUND: Population-level data spanning different countries describing oral and parenteral treatment in pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are scarce. We studied treatment with sulfasalazine/5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, thiopurines/immunomodulators, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors in the United States (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart and the Medicaid Analytics Extract [MAX]) and in the Swedish national health registers. METHODS: We identified 2975 pregnant women in Optum (2004-2013), 3219 women in MAX (2001-2013), and 1713 women in Sweden (2006-2015) with a recorded diagnosis of IBD. We assessed patterns of use for each drug class according to filled prescriptions, assessing frequency of treatment continuation in those that were treated in the prepregnancy period. RESULTS: The proportion of women with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis on any treatment during pregnancy was 56.1% and 56.3% in Optum, 47.5% and 49.3% in MAX, and 61.3% and 64.7% in Sweden, respectively, and remained stable over time. Sulfasalazine/5-aminosalicylates was the most commonly used treatment in Crohn's disease, ranging from 25.1% in MAX to 31.8% in Optum, and in ulcerative colitis, ranging from 34.9% in MAX to 53.6% in Sweden. From 2006 to 2012, the TNF-inhibitor use increased from 5.0% to 15.5% in Optum, from 3.6% to 8.5% in MAX, and from 0.7% to 8.3% in Sweden. Continuing TNF-inhibitor treatment throughout pregnancy was more common in Optum (55.8%) and in MAX (43.0%) than in Sweden (11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study from 2 countries, the proportion of women with IBD treatment in pregnancy remained relatively constant. TNF-inhibitor use increased substantially in both countries.

Clinical outcomes following bone marrow transplantation in patients with sickle cell disease: A cohort study of US Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVES: Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) is currently the only curative therapy available for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), but clinical outcomes in routine care are not well understood. We describe the rates of vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs), transplant complications, and mortality in SCD patients after BMT. METHODS: A cohort study of SCD patients who underwent BMT was designed using US Medicaid claims data (2000-2013). RESULTS: A total of 204 SCD patients undergoing BMT were identified with a mean (SD) age of 10.6 (7.3) years, with 52.9% male and 67.6% African American. The overall VOC rate was 0.99 per person-year (95% CI: 0.91-1.07) over a median follow-up time of 2.1 years (IQR: 0.8-4.3 years). A total of 138 (67.6%) remained free of VOCs. The mortality rate was 1.7 (95% CI: 0.9-3.1) per 100 person-years, transplant-related complications occurred among 113 (55.4%) patients with an incidence rate of 38.2 (95% CI: 31.7-45.9) per 100 person-years, while 47 (23%) patients had GvHD with an incidence rate of 8.0 (95% CI: 6.0-10.7) per 100 person-years. CONCLUSION: Two thirds of the BMT recipients remained VOC-free over 2 years of follow-up, but transplant-related complications, including GvHD occurred with high frequency. This highlights a continuing unmet need for alternative curative interventions in SCD.

Using Healthcare Databases to Replicate Trial Findings for Supplemental Indications: Adalimumab in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis.

Regulators wish to understand whether real world evidence can be used for secondary indications of biologics. Using the secondary indication of adalimumab for ulcerative colitis (UC) as an example, we aimed to replicate the ULTRA-2 randomized controlled trial finding on the effectiveness of adalimumab in patients with UC using realworld data analyses. Adalimumab, a TNF-alpha receptor inhibitor initially approved for Crohn's disease, was approved for moderate to severe UC in 2012. The ULTRA-2 trial had shown improved remission against placebo in patients with UC. Using claims data (2006-2012), we conducted a cohort study of patients with UC who initiated adalimumab and compared them with (i) nonusers and (ii) new users of infliximab using propensity score matching. The coprimary end points were corticosteroid (CS) discontinuation within 8 weeks and 1 year of treatment. We computed hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We identified 398 matched pairs of adalimumab users vs. nonusers and 326 pairs of adalimumab vs. infliximab users. Adalimumab users were 28% more likely to achieve CS-discontinuation compared with nonusers over 1 year (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.94-1.73). However, unlike in ULTRA-2, this effect was not observed in the first 8 weeks (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.97). Compared with infliximab, adalimumab initiators showed no incremental benefit over 1 year (HR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.80-1.04), but showed a 22% reduction (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95) during the first 8 weeks of treatment. In summary, our results highlight opportunities and some limitations of database analysis to identify treatment effects for secondary indications.