Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 29(4): 404-408, 2020 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31849154

RESUMO

PURPOSE: An increasing number of new medications are being developed and approved for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). To generate real-world evidence on comparative safety and effectiveness of these drugs, a claims-based algorithm that can accurately identify PsA is greatly needed. METHODS: To identify patients with PsA, we developed seven claims-based algorithms based on a combination of diagnosis codes and medication dispensing using the claims data from Medicare parts A/B/D linked to electronic medical records (2012-2014). Two physicians independently conducted a chart review using the treating physician's diagnosis of PsA as the gold standard. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% confidence intervals of each algorithm. RESULTS: Of the total 2157 records identified by the seven algorithms, 45% of the records had relevant clinical data to determine the presence of PsA. The PPV of the algorithms ranged from 75.2% (algorithm 1: ≥2 diagnosis codes for PsA and ≥1 diagnosis code for psoriasis) to 88.6% (algorithm 7: ≥2 diagnosis codes for PsA with ≥1 code by rheumatologist and ≥1 dispensing for PsA medication). Having ≥2 diagnosis codes and ≥1 dispensing for PsA medications (algorithm 6) also had PPV of 82.4%. CONCLUSIONS: All seven claims-based algorithms demonstrated a moderately high PPV of 75% to 89% in identifying PsA. The use of ≥2 diagnosis codes plus ≥1 prescription claim for PsA appears to be a valid and efficient tool in identifying PsA patients in the claims data, while broader algorithms based on diagnoses without a prescription claim also have reasonably good PPVs.


Assuntos
Algoritmos , Artrite Psoriásica/epidemiologia , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/normas , Medicare/normas , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Artrite Psoriásica/diagnóstico , Feminino , Humanos , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/tendências , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Medicare/tendências , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
2.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 78(4): 456-464, 2019 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30679153

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the rate of serious bacterial, viral or opportunistic infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting tocilizumab (TCZ) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept. METHODS: Using claims data from US Medicare from 2010 to 2015, and IMS and MarketScan from 2011 to 2015, we identified adults with RA who initiated TCZ or TNFi (primary comparator)/abatacept (secondary comparator) with prior use of ≥1 different biologic drug or tofacitinib. The primary outcome was hospitalised serious infection (SI), including bacterial, viral or opportunistic infection. To control for >70 confounders, TCZ initiators were propensity score (PS)-matched to TNFi or abatacept initiators. Database-specific HRs were combined by a meta-analysis. RESULTS: The primary cohort included 16 074 TCZ PS-matched to 33 109 TNFi initiators. The risk of composite SI was not different between TCZ and TNFi initiators (combined HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16). However, TCZ was associated with an increased risk of serious bacterial infection (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.33), skin and soft tissue infections (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.86), and diverticulitis (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.34) versus TNFi. An increased risk of composite SI, serious bacterial infection, diverticulitis, pneumonia/upper respiratory tract infection and septicaemia/bacteraemia was observed in TCZ versus abatacept users. CONCLUSIONS: This large multidatabase cohort study found no difference in composite SI risk in patients with RA initiating TCZ versus TNFi after failing ≥1 biologic drug or tofacitinib. However, the risk of serious bacterial infection, skin and soft tissue infections, and diverticulitis was higher in TCZ versus TNFi initiators. The risk of composite SI was higher in TCZ initiators versus abatacept.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Antirreumáticos/efeitos adversos , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Produtos Biológicos/efeitos adversos , Infecções Oportunistas/induzido quimicamente , Abatacepte/efeitos adversos , Abatacepte/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/epidemiologia , Infecções Bacterianas/induzido quimicamente , Infecções Bacterianas/epidemiologia , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Bases de Dados Factuais , Feminino , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infecções Oportunistas/epidemiologia , Medição de Risco/métodos , Inibidores do Fator de Necrose Tumoral/efeitos adversos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Viroses/induzido quimicamente , Viroses/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA