Cannabis for chronic pain: cardiovascular safety in a nationwide Danish study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A rising number of countries allow physicians to treat chronic pain with medical cannabis. However, recreational cannabis use has been linked with cardiovascular side effects, necessitating investigations concerning the safety of prescribed medical cannabis. METHODS: Using nationwide Danish registers, patients with chronic pain initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-21 were identified and matched 1:5 to corresponding control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other pain medication. The absolute risks of first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome were reported comparing medical cannabis use with no use. RESULTS: Among 1.88 million patients with chronic pain (46% musculoskeletal, 11% cancer, 13% neurological, and 30% unspecified pain), 5391 patients claimed a prescription of medical cannabis [63.2% women, median age: 59 (inter-quartile range 48-70) years] and were compared with 26 941 control patients of equal sex- and age composition. Arrhythmia was observed in 42 and 107 individuals, respectively, within 180 days. Medical cannabis use was associated with an elevated risk of new-onset arrhythmia {180-day absolute risk: 0.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6%-1.1%]} compared with no use [180-day absolute risk: 0.4% (95% CI 0.3%-0.5%)]: a risk ratio of 2.07 (95% CI 1.34-2.80) and a 1-year risk ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.00-1.73). No significant association was found for acute coronary syndrome [180-day risk ratio: 1.20 (95% CI 0.35-2.04)]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic pain, the use of prescribed medical cannabis was associated with an elevated risk of new-onset arrhythmia compared with no use-most pronounced in the 180 days following the initiation of treatment.

Health conditions in adults with HIV compared with the general population: A population-based cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Life expectancy in adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has increased and managing other health conditions is increasingly important for patients and healthcare planning. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and association between different health conditions and HIV status. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of adult UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care electronic medical records linked to hospital admissions as of Nov 30, 2015. We examined 47 health condition groups and 304 physical and mental health conditions by HIV status, after adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation status using logistic regression. Findings: There were 964 patients with HIV (61.7% male; 92.8% aged <65 years) and 941,113 non-HIV patients (49.4% male; 75.2% aged <65 years). Condition groups with the greatest prevalence in HIV that were also highly prevalent in adults without HIV included: lipid disorder (41.4% vs 40.2%), and hypertension (19.1% vs 24.6%). Following adjustment, 18 (37.5%) condition groups were more likely in adults with HIV and ten (20.8%) were less likely. Individual conditions that were less likely in adults with HIV included: atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] 0.37 [95% CI 0.20-0.64]) and hypertension (OR_0.78 [0.65-0.94]); rheumatoid arthritis (OR 0.27 [0.05-0.84]); asthma (OR_0.65 (0.53-0.80]); and certain eye diseases such as macular degeneration (OR_0.30 [0.09-0.70]). Meanwhile individual conditions that were more likely included: liver fibrosis, sclerosis, and cirrhosis (OR_3.23 [1.85-5.20]); pulmonary embolism (OR_2.06 [1.15-3.36]); male infertility (OR_2.23 [1.50-3.16]) and female infertility (OR_2.01 [1.34-2.88]); bipolar disorder (OR_2.93 [1.52-5.05]) and depression (OR_1.49 [1.28-1.71]); cervical malignancy (OR_4.64 [1.15-12.15]); and infections. Interpretation: Comorbidity is common in adults with HIV, with physical and mental health conditions spanning a wide spectrum. HIV management should consider multidisciplinary care models to provide optimal patient care. Funding: The project was funded by the Bart's Charity; DRM was funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship; DRM and DMM received funding from the HDR-UK Precision therapeutics programme.

Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulation and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with atrial fibrillation: a nationwide study.

AIMS: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are displacing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could increase gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) risks among these patients. The aim of this study was to examine the risk of GIB among Danish AF patients taking oral anticoagulants (OACs) and NSAIDs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using nationwide administrative registries, we determined concomitant NSAID use among anticoagulant-naïve patients with AF initiating OACs between August 2011 and June 2017. We calculated short-term absolute risks differences and hazard ratios (HRs) for GIB based on multiple adjusted cause-specific Cox regressions with time-dependent NSAID treatment. Among 41 183 patients [median age 70 years (interquartile range 64-78); 55% men], 21% of patients on NOACs and 18% on VKA were co-prescribed NSAIDs. The differences in absolute risk [95% confidence interval (CI)] of GIB within 14 days of commencing concomitant NSAID therapy (vs. no concomitant NSAID therapy) were 0.10% (0.04-0.18%) for NOACs and 0.13% (0.03-0.24%) for VKA. NOACs overall were associated with less GIB than VKA [HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.85)]. Compared with OACs alone, concomitant NSAIDs doubled the GIB risk associated with NOACs overall [HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.40-2.61)] and with VKA [HR 1.95 (95% CI 1.21-2.69)]. CONCLUSION: Among this nationwide AF population taking OACs, concomitant NSAID therapy increased the short-term absolute risk of GIB. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants alone were associated with lower GIB risks than VKA but concomitant NSAIDs abolished this advantage. The findings align with post hoc analyses from randomized studies. Physicians should exercise appropriate caution when prescribing NSAIDs for patients with AF taking NOACs or VKA.

The use of validated and nonvalidated surrogate endpoints in two European Medicines Agency expedited approval pathways: A cross-sectional study of products authorised 2011-2018.

BACKGROUND: In situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway. CONCLUSIONS: The pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.

Impact of proton pump inhibitor treatment on gastrointestinal bleeding associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use among post-myocardial infarction patients taking antithrombotics: nationwide study.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in post-myocardial infarction patients taking antithrombotics and treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)? METHODS: This was a nationwide cohort study based on linked administrative registry data from all hospitals in Denmark between 1997 and 2011. The study included patients aged 30 years and over admitted with a first myocardial infarction who survived at least 30 days after discharge. The association between PPIs and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding according to NSAID plus antithrombotic therapy was estimated using adjusted time dependent Cox regression models. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: The use of PPIs was independently associated with decreased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in post-myocardial infarction patients taking antithrombotics and treated with NSAIDs. Of 82,955 post-myocardial infarction patients (mean age 67.4 years, 64% (n=53,070) men), all of whom were taking single or dual antithrombotic therapy, 42.5% (n=35,233) filled at least one prescription for NSAIDs and 45.5% (n=37,771) received PPIs. Over a mean follow-up of 5.1 years, 3229 gastrointestinal bleeds occurred. The crude incidence rates of bleeding (events/100 person years) on NSAID plus antithrombotic therapy were 1.8 for patients taking PPIs and 2.1 for those not taking PPIs. The adjusted risk of bleeding was lower with PPI use (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.95) regardless of antithrombotic treatment regimen, type of NSAID, and type of PPI used. The main limitation of the study is its observational non-randomised design. The results suggest that PPI treatment probably has a beneficial effect regardless of underlying gastrointestinal risk and that when NSAIDs cannot be avoided in post-myocardial infarction patients, physicians might prescribe a PPI as well. The study does not clarify whether PPIs might be safely omitted in specific subgroups of patients with a low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: In post-myocardial infarction patients, bleeding complications have been associated with both antithrombotic and NSAID treatment. Concurrent use of PPIs was independently associated with a decreased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in post-myocardial infarction patients taking antithrombotics and NSAID, regardless of antithrombotic treatment regimen, type of NSAID, and type of PPI used. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: AMSO has received a grant from the Danish Council of Independent Research (grant 12-132760). GHG is supported by an unrestricted research scholarship from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Uncovering the potential risk of serotonin toxicity in Australian veterans using pharmaceutical claims data.

AIMS: We examined potential risk of serotonin toxicity in Australian veterans by quantifying the concomitant use of serotonergic medicine combinations from claims data collected by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 273 228 Australian veterans, war widows, widowers and dependents aged >or=55 years and holding full treatment entitlement for the period July 2000 to June 2004 or until death. The main outcome measure was potential concomitant use, estimated as the number of cohort members with an overlap in days of supply for serotonergic medicine combinations over the 4 year period for all medicine combinations and potentially life threatening combinations. RESULTS: From July 2000 to June 2004, 115 969 (42%) cohort members were dispensed at least one serotonergic medicine. 20 658 (8%) had at least one episode of potential concomitant use. We identified 1811 (0.7%) cohort members with at least one overlapping period of potentially life-threatening serotonergic medicine combinations, 937 of whom had the combinations dispensed within the recommended washout period. Three hundred and seventeen of these individuals were dispensed potentially life-threatening medicine combinations on the same day. The most common combinations were moclobemide with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or tramadol. CONCLUSIONS: The individuals potentially at risk of mild to moderate serotonin toxicity were considerable and potentially life threatening combinations were not infrequent. While we were unable to determine how many individuals experienced serotonin toxicity this study indicates, for the first time, the potential size of the problem in a subgroup of elderly Australians. Clinicians and patients need to be vigilant regarding inadvertent concomitant use, especially that of moclobemide with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or tramadol.

Describing treatment effects to patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different presentations of equivalent information (framing) on treatment decisions faced by patients. DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. English language publications allocating participants to different frames were retrieved using electronic and bibliographic searches. Two reviewers examined each article for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality. Study characteristics were tabulated and where possible, relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to estimate intervention effects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles, yielding 40 experimental studies, were included. Studies examined treatment (N = 24), immunization (N = 5), or health behavior scenarios (N = 11). Overall, active treatments were preferred when outcomes were described in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reductions or number needed to treat. Surgery was preferred to other treatments when treatment efficacy was presented in a positive frame (survival) rather than a negative frame (mortality) (relative risk [RR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64). Framing effects were less obvious for immunization and health behavior scenarios. Those with little interest in the behavior at baseline were influenced by framing, particularly when information was presented as gains. In studies judged to be of good methodological quality and/or examining actual decisions, the framing effect, although still evident, was less convincing compared to the results of all included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Framing effects varied with the type of scenario, responder characteristics, scenario manipulations, and study quality. When describing treatment effects to patients, expressing the information in more than one way may present a balanced view to patients and enable them to make informed decisions.