Comparative Risk of Injury with Concurrent Use of Opioids and Skeletal Muscle Relaxants.

Concurrent use of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) and opioids has been linked to an increased risk of injury. However, it remains unclear whether the injury risks differ by specific SMR when combined with opioids. We conducted nine retrospective cohort studies within a US Medicaid population. Each cohort consisted exclusively of person-time exposed to both an SMR and one of the three most dispensed opioids-hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioid users were further divided into three cohorts based on the initiation order of SMRs and opioids-synchronically triggered, opioid-triggered, and SMR-triggered. Within each cohort, we used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the injury rates for different SMRs compared to methocarbamol, adjusting for covariates. We identified 349,543, 139,458, and 218,967 concurrent users of SMRs with hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol, respectively. In the oxycodone-SMR-triggered cohort, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23-2.82) for carisoprodol and 1.73 (1.09-2.73) for tizanidine. In the tramadol-synchronically triggered cohort, the adjusted HRs were 0.69 (0.49-0.97) for metaxalone and 0.62 (0.42-0.90) for tizanidine. In the tramadol-SMR-triggered cohort, the adjusted HRs were 1.51 (1.01-2.26) for baclofen and 1.48 (1.03-2.11) for cyclobenzaprine. All other HRs were statistically nonsignificant. In conclusion, the relative injury rate associated with different SMRs used concurrently with the three most dispensed opioids appears to vary depending on the specific opioid and the order of combination initiation. If confirmed by future studies, clinicians should consider the varying injury rates when prescribing SMRs to individuals using hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol.

Evaluation of Spending Differences Between Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

Importance: The 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk. Objective: To examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022. Exposures: Enrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Per-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending. Results: The sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.

Skeletal muscle relaxant drug-drug-drug interactions and unintentional traumatic injury: Screening to detect three-way drug interaction signals.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify skeletal muscle relaxant (SMR) drug-drug-drug interaction (3DI) signals associated with increased rates of unintentional traumatic injury. METHODS: We conducted automated high-throughput pharmacoepidemiologic screening of 2000-2019 healthcare data for members of United States commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. We performed a self-controlled case series study for each drug triad consisting of an SMR base-pair (i.e., concomitant use of an SMR with another medication), and a co-dispensed medication (i.e., candidate interacting precipitant) taken during ongoing use of the base-pair. We included patients aged ≥16 years with an injury occurring during base-pair-exposed observation time. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate adjusted rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for injury with each SMR base-pair + candidate interacting precipitant (i.e., triad) versus the SMR-containing base-pair alone. RESULTS: Among 58 478 triads, 29 were significantly positively associated with injury; confounder-adjusted RRs ranged from 1.39 (95% CI = 1.01-1.91) for tizanidine + omeprazole with gabapentin to 2.23 (95% CI = 1.02-4.87) for tizanidine + diclofenac with alprazolam. Most identified 3DI signals are new and have not been formally investigated. CONCLUSION: We identified 29 SMR 3DI signals associated with increased rates of injury. Future aetiologic studies should confirm or refute these SMR 3DI signals.

Intensity of end-of-life care for gynecologic cancer patients by primary oncologist specialty.

OBJECTIVE: The association of primary oncologist specialty, medical oncology versus gynecologic oncology, on intensity of care at the end of life in elderly patients with gynecologic cancer is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (SEER-M) data. Subjects were fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged 65 years and older who died of a gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2015. The primary outcome was a composite score for high-intensity care received in the last month of life. Secondary outcomes included invasive procedures and Medicare spending in the last month of life. Simple and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses evaluated differences in outcomes by primary oncologist specialty. Linear regressions were repeated after creating a more similar control group through nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 12 189 patients, 7705 (63%) had a medical primary oncologist in the last year of life. In adjusted analyses, patients with a gynecologic versus medical primary oncologist received lower rates of high-intensity end-of-life care (53.9% vs 56.6%; p=0.018). Results were similar for the propensity score-matched cohorts. However, having a gynecologic versus medical primary oncologist was associated with higher rates of invasive procedures in the last month of life (43% vs 41%; p=0.014) and higher Medicare spending ($83 859 vs $74 849; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Both specialties engage in overall high levels of intense end-of-life care, with differences by specialty in aspects of aggressive care and spending at the end of life. Physician-level training could be a target for educational or quality improvement initiatives to improve end-of-life cancer care delivery.

Association of gynecologic oncology versus medical oncology specialty with survival, utilization, and spending for treatment of gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: We examined the association of gynecologic oncology (GYO) versus medical oncology (MEDONC) based care with survival, health care utilization and spending outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gynecologic cancers. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV uterine, ovarian, and cervical cancers from 2000 to 2015 were identified in SEER-Medicare. We assessed the association of provider specialty with overall survival, emergency department utilization, admissions, and spending. Outcomes were assessed using unadjusted and Inverse Treatment Probability Weighted propensity-score applied, multi-variable cox modeling, Poisson regression, and generalized models of log-transformed data. RESULTS: We identified 7930 gynecologic cancer patients (4360 ovarian, 2934 uterine, 643 cervix). 37% were treated by GYO and 63% by MEDONC. For ovarian patients, GYO care was associated with improved OS (median OS 3.3 v. 2.9 years; HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.80, 0.91, p < .0001) and similar mean spending per month ($4015 v. $4316, mean ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.02), p = .19), compared to MEDONC in adjusted analyses. For uterine patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, but decreased spending ($3573 v. $4081, mean ratio 0.87 (95% CI.81, 0.93), p < .0001), and decreased ED utilization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, p < .0001). For cervical patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, and similar spending. Admissions were more likely in ovarian (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.11, 1.37, p = .0001) and cervical patients (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51, p = .015) treated by GYO, in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: GYO based care was associated with improved OS and equal spending for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Uterine and cervix patients had similar OS, and less or equal spending respectively, when treated by GYO compared to MEDONC.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Used Concomitantly with Insulin Secretagogues and the Risk of Serious Hypoglycemia.

Serious hypoglycemia is a major adverse event associated with insulin secretagogues. Previous studies have suggested a potential relationship between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) used with sulfonylureas and serious hypoglycemia, and widely used drug compendia warn of this potential drug-drug interaction. We investigated the association between serious hypoglycemia and concomitant use of ACEIs in patients receiving insulin secretagogues, using the self-controlled case series design and Medicaid claims data from 5 US states linked to Medicare claims from 1999-2011. The exposure of interest was active prescription for ACEIs during insulin secretagogue or metformin (negative control object drug) episodes. The outcome was hospital presentation for serious hypoglycemia, identified by discharge diagnosis codes in inpatient and emergency department claims (positive predictive value ~ 78-89%). We calculated confounder-adjusted rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence internals (CIs) of outcome occurrence during ACEI-exposed vs. ACEI-unexposed time using conditional Poisson regression. The RRs for ACEIs were not statistically elevated during observation time of glipizide (RR, 1.06; CI, 0.98-1.15), glyburide (RR, 1.05; CI, 0.96-1.15), repaglinide (RR, 1.15; CI, 0.94-1.41), or metformin (RR, 1.02; CI, 0.97-1.06); but was modestly elevated with glimepiride (RR, 1.23; CI, 1.11-1.37) and modestly reduced with nateglinide (RR, 0.73; CI, 0.56-0.96). The overall pattern of results do not suggest that ACEIs used with insulin secretagogues were associated with increased rates of serious hypoglycemia, with the possible exception of glimepiride.

Risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with sulfonylureas: An experience with conceptual replication in two independent populations.

Sulfonylureas are commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite awareness of their effects on cardiac physiology, a knowledge gap exists regarding their effects on cardiovascular events in real-world populations. Prior studies reported sulfonylurea-associated cardiovascular death but not serious arrhythmogenic endpoints like sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) or ventricular arrhythmia (VA). We assessed the comparative real-world risk of SCA/VA among users of second-generation sulfonylureas: glimepiride, glyburide, and glipizide. We conducted two incident user cohort studies using five-state Medicaid claims (1999-2012) and Optum Clinformatics commercial claims (2000-2016). Outcomes were SCA/VA events precipitating hospital presentation. We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for high-dimensional propensity scores, to generate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR). We identified 624,406 and 491,940 sulfonylurea users, and 714 and 385 SCA/VA events, in Medicaid and Optum, respectively. Dataset-specific associations with SCA/VA for both glimepiride and glyburide (vs. glipizide) were on opposite sides of and could not exclude the null (glimepiride: aHRMedicaid 1.17, 95% CI 0.96-1.42; aHROptum 0.84, 0.65-1.08; glyburide: aHRMedicaid 0.87, 0.74-1.03; aHROptum 1.11, 0.86-1.42). Database differences in data availability, populations, and documentation completeness may have contributed to the incongruous results. Emphasis should be placed on assessing potential causes of discrepancies between conflicting studies evaluating the same research question.

Sulfonylureas and Metformin Were Not Associated With an Increased Rate of Serious Bleeding in Warfarin Users: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

Drug interactions between warfarin and sulfonylureas are suggested by pharmacokinetic information and prior studies. However, clinical evidence on the association of such interactions and the risk of bleeding is lacking. Using healthcare claims data from 5 US Medicaid programs from 1999-2011 and a self-controlled case series design with warfarin as an object drug, we calculated confounder-adjusted rate ratios (RRs) for concomitant use of sulfonylureas and metformin for 3 outcomes separately: (i) serious bleeding as a composite outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH); (ii) GIB; and (iii) ICH. In 6,463 warfarin users experiencing serious bleeding, an increased rate of serious bleeding was not associated with concomitant use of glimepiride (RR: 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.15), glipizide (RR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.84-1.13), glyburide (RR: 0.89; 95% CI 0.76-1.06), or metformin (RR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.76-0.96), nor was the occurrence of the component outcomes of GIB or ICH. These results suggest that use of sulfonylureas or metformin was not associated with an increased rate of serious bleeding in warfarin users.

The risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone: real-world evidence on thiazolidinedione safety.

BACKGROUND: The low cost of thiazolidinediones makes them a potentially valuable therapeutic option for the > 300 million economically disadvantaged persons worldwide with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Differential selectivity of thiazolidinediones for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the myocardium may lead to disparate arrhythmogenic effects. We examined real-world effects of thiazolidinediones on outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and ventricular arrhythmia (VA). METHODS: We conducted population-based high-dimensional propensity score-matched cohort studies in five Medicaid programs (California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania | 1999-2012) and a commercial health insurance plan (Optum Clinformatics | 2000-2016). We defined exposure based on incident rosiglitazone or pioglitazone dispensings; the latter served as an active comparator. We controlled for confounding by matching exposure groups on propensity score, informed by baseline covariates identified via a data adaptive approach. We ascertained SCA/VA outcomes precipitating hospital presentation using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We generated marginal hazard ratios (HRs) via Cox proportional hazards regression that accounted for clustering within matched pairs. We prespecified Medicaid and Optum findings as primary and secondary, respectively; the latter served as a conceptual replication dataset. RESULTS: The adjusted HR for SCA/VA among rosiglitazone (vs. pioglitazone) users was 0.91 (0.75-1.10) in Medicaid and 0.88 (0.61-1.28) in Optum. Among Medicaid but not Optum enrollees, we found treatment effect heterogeneity by sex (adjusted HRs = 0.71 [0.54-0.93] and 1.16 [0.89-1.52] in men and women respectively, interaction term p-value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone appear to be associated with similar risks of SCA/VA.

Drug Enforcement Agency 2014 Hydrocodone Rescheduling Rule and Opioid Dispensing after Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reclassified hydrocodone from Schedule III to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, resulting in new restrictions on refills. The authors hypothesized that hydrocodone rescheduling led to decreases in total opioid dispensing within 30 days of surgery and reduced new long-term opioid dispensing among surgical patients. METHODS: The authors studied privately insured, opioid-naïve adults undergoing 10 general or orthopedic surgeries between 2011 and 2015. The authors conducted a differences-in-differences analysis that compared overall opioid dispensing before versus after the rescheduling rule for patients treated by surgeons who frequently prescribed hydrocodone before rescheduling (i.e., patients who were functionally exposed to rescheduling's impact) while adjusting for secular trends via a comparison group of patients treated by surgeons who rarely prescribed hydrocodone (i.e., unexposed patients). The primary outcome was any filled opioid prescription between 90 and 180 days after surgery; secondary outcomes included the 30-day refill rate and the amount of opioids dispensed initially and at 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: The sample included 65,136 patients. The percentage of patients filling a prescription beyond 90 days was similar after versus before rescheduling (absolute risk difference, -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 0.1%; P = 0.084). The authors estimated the rescheduling rule to be associated with a 45.4-mg oral morphine equivalent increase (difference-in-differences estimate; 95% CI, 34.2-56.7 mg; P < 0.001) in initial opioid dispensing, a 4.1% absolute decrease (95% CI, -5.5% to -2.7%; P < 0.001) in refills within 30 days, and a 37.7-mg oral morphine equivalent increase (95% CI, 20.6-54.8 mg; P = 0.008) in opioids dispensed within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated by surgeons who frequently prescribed hydrocodone before the Drug Enforcement Agency 2014 hydrocodone rescheduling rule, rescheduling did not impact long-term opioid receipt, although it was associated with an increase in opioid dispensing within 30 days of surgery.

Assessment of poor functional status and post-acute care needs following primary ovarian cancer debulking surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Poor baseline functional status is associated with adverse surgical outcomes. Additionally, decline in the postoperative setting may result in the delay of additional treatments, impacting overall survival. This study assesses the incidence and risk factors for functional decline following primary ovarian cancer debulking surgery in previously independent women using discharge location as a surrogate. METHODS: All patients with a postoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer who underwent surgical debulking and had documentation of discharge location were identified using the 2011-2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were excluded if their baseline functional status was dependent or partially dependent, or if they died before discharge. Discharge destination was dichotomized as home versus non-home. Descriptive data included demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of clinical and surgical factors on discharge destination. RESULTS: 1786 patients met the criteria for analysis; 120 (6.7%) patients were discharged to non-home. Differences between home and non-home discharges included age (53.2% vs 83.3% ≥60), body mass index (26.5 vs 27.8 median), comorbidities (45.2% vs 64.2% with ≥1), and complications (8.6% vs 30.0% with ≥1, all p<0.05). In multivariable logistic regression analyses, only increasing age and complications were independently associated with discharge to non-home. Those age ≥70 had 9.0 times the risk (95% CI 3.5 to 23.4; p<0.001) as age <50. The presence of one or more postoperative complications carried 4.5 times (95% CI 2.9 to 7.0; p<0.001) the risk of those without complications. 30 day mortality was also increased in patients discharged to non-home. DISCUSSION: 6.7% of previously independent ovarian cancer patients were discharged to non-home following surgery. Major risk factors for non-home include older age, comorbidities, and postoperative complications. Efforts to optimize baseline functional status and minimize surgical complications may improve discharge rates to non-home and postoperative functional status.

Low rate of intraperitoneal port placement in ovarian cancer patients, a population-based assessment.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend intraperitoneal chemotherapy in optimally debulked stage III ovarian cancer patients. The objective of this investigation was to determine the rate of intraperitoneal port placement in patients undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer in a national database maintained by the American College of Surgeons. METHOD: We identified ovarian cancer patients in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2006 to 2012. Demographics, comorbidities, operative outcomes, and postoperative complications were abstracted. Descriptive analyses were conducted using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi square tests, and multivariate regression models were used to analyze pre-operative and post-operative variables associated with intraperitoneal port placement. RESULTS: We identified 2659 ovarian cancer patients who underwent primary surgical management. Of these patients, only 128 (4.8%) had an intraperitoneal port placed at the time of surgery. In multivariable analyses, intraperitoneal ports were associated with body mass index ≤25, disseminated cancer, later portion of the study period (2009-2012), and operative time >200 min. Intraperitoneal port placement was not associated with any difference in surgical site infection, wound disruption, major postoperative complication, readmission within 30 days, or death within 30 days. DISCUSSION: Recent investigation of practice at NCCN institutions between 2003 and 2012 found only 35% of eligible ovarian cancer patients received intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Using intraperitoneal port placement as a surrogate for intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration, our investigation suggests an even lower rate (4.8%) nationally.

Serious Hypoglycemia and Use of Warfarin in Combination With Sulfonylureas or Metformin.

Prior research suggests that warfarin, when given concomitantly with some sulfonylureas, may increase the risk of serious hypoglycemia. However, the clinical significance remains unclear. We examined rate ratios (RRs) for the association between serious hypoglycemia and concomitant use of warfarin with either sulfonylureas or metformin using a self-controlled case series design and US Medicaid claims (supplemented with Medicare claims) from 1999 to 2011. Across all risk windows combined, warfarin was associated with an elevated rate of serious hypoglycemia when given concomitantly with glimepiride (RR, 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-2.02) and metformin (RR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.38-2.16). Particularly in the late risk window (>120 days since beginning concomitancy), most of the RRs for warfarin were elevated: glipizide (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29), glyburide (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15-2.15), metformin (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.67-3.05), and glimepiride (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.97-2.50). These results are consistent with a previously hypothesized hypoglycemic effect of warfarin in patients with type 2 diabetes through inhibition of the carboxylation of osteocalcin.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug choice and adverse outcomes in clopidogrel users: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative safety of individual NSAIDs when given concomitantly with clopidogrel. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicaid claims from five US states during 1999-2010, supplemented with Medicare claims for dual-enrollees. The exposure of interest was the first concomitant use of clopidogrel and one of the 10 selected NSAIDs after a 1-year baseline period. The outcomes were: all-cause mortality; acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/ischemic stroke; and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB)/intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We calculated the hazard ratio of each NSAID for each outcome, with ibuprofen as the reference drug, using high-dimensional propensity score-adjusted proportional-hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 1,060,412 clopidogrel users, 268,114 concomitant NSAID users met inclusion/exclusion criteria, contributing 48,483 person-years. We observed 2,463 deaths, 2,822 AMI/ischemic stroke outcomes, and 2,620 GIB/ICH outcomes, for unadjusted incidence rates of 50.8, 58.6, and 54.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Compared with ibuprofen and controlling for potential confounders, rofecoxib (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04, 1.43) and valdecoxib (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.92) showed higher and lower hazards of mortality, respectively. Indomethacin showed an increased AMI/ischemic stroke hazard (HR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.74). For GIB/ICH, indomethacin (HR = 2.18; 95% CI: 1.74, 2.73), diclofenac (HR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.39, 1.97), naproxen (HR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.28, 1.70), and rofecoxib (HR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.48) showed higher hazards, and valdecoxib (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.98) showed a lower hazard. CONCLUSION: The bleeding risks of individual NSAIDs varied more markedly than thrombotic risks when used concomitantly with clopidogrel. Moreover, bleeding risk and thrombotic risk among individual NSAIDs did not appear to be inversely related to each other in the presence of clopidogrel. Further studies are needed to elucidate underlying biological mechanisms and help clinical decision-making for a better NSAID choice in clopidogrel users.

Increased Mortality Rates With Prolonged Corticosteroid Therapy When Compared With Antitumor Necrosis Factor-α-Directed Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) that compromise quality of life and may increase mortality. This study compared the mortality risk with prolonged corticosteroid use vs. antitumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF) drugs in IBD. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries from 2001 to 2013 with IBD prescribed either >3,000 mg of prednisone or equivalent within a 12-month period or new initiation of anti-TNF therapy, each treated as time-updating exposures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included common causes of death. Marginal structural models were used to determine odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for anti-TNF use relative to corticosteroids. RESULTS: Among patients with CD, 7,694 entered the cohort as prolonged corticosteroid users and 1,879 as new anti-TNF users. Among patients with UC, 3,224 and 459 entered the cohort as prolonged CS users and new anti-TNF users, respectively. The risk of death was statistically significantly lower in patients treated with anti-TNF therapy for CD (21.4 vs. 30.1 per 1,000 person-years, OR 0.78, 0.65-0.93) but not for UC (23.0 vs. 30.9 per 1,000 person-years, OR 0.87, 0.63-1.22). Among the CD cohort, anti-TNF therapy was also associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.68, 0.55-0.85) and hip fracture (OR 0.54, 0.34-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with prolonged corticosteroid exposure, anti-TNF drug use was associated with reduced mortality in patients with CD that may be explained by lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and hip fracture.

Comparative risk of serious hypoglycemia with oral antidiabetic monotherapy: A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To examine and compare risks of serious hypoglycemia among antidiabetic monotherapy-treated adults receiving metformin, a sulfonylurea, a meglitinide, or a thiazolidinedione. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of apparently new users of monotherapy with metformin, glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, nateglinide, or repaglinide within a dataset of Medicaid beneficiaries from California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We did not include users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. We identified serious hypoglycemia outcomes within 180 days following new use using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We calculated age- and sex-standardized outcome occurrence rates for each drug and generated propensity score-adjusted hazard ratios vs metformin using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The ranking of standardized occurrence rates of serious hypoglycemia was glyburide > glimepiride > glipizide > repaglinide > nateglinide > rosiglitazone > pioglitazone > metformin. Rates were increased for all study drugs at higher average daily doses. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) vs metformin were 3.95 (3.66-4.26) for glyburide, 3.28 (2.98-3.62) for glimepiride, 2.57 (2.38-2.78) for glipizide, 2.03 (1.64-2.52) for repaglinide, 1.21 (0.89-1.66) for nateglinide, 0.90 (0.75-1.07) for rosiglitazone, and 0.80 (0.68-0.93) for pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Sulfonylureas were associated with the highest rates of serious hypoglycemia. Among all study drugs, the highest rate was seen with glyburide. Pioglitazone was associated with a lower adjusted hazard for serious hypoglycemia vs metformin, while rosiglitazone and nateglinide had hazards similar to that of metformin.

The quality of Medicaid and Medicare data obtained from CMS and its contractors: implications for pharmacoepidemiology.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims of United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) beneficiaries have long been used in non-experimental research. While CMS performs in-house checks of these claims, little is known of their quality for conducting pharmacoepidemiologic research. We performed exploratory analyses of the quality of Medicaid and Medicare data obtained from CMS and its contractors. METHODS: Our study population consisted of Medicaid beneficiaries (with and without dual coverage by Medicare) from California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We obtained and compiled 1999-2011 data from these state Medicaid programs (constituting about 38% of nationwide Medicaid enrollment), together with corresponding national Medicare data for dually-enrolled beneficiaries. This descriptive study examined longitudinal patterns in: dispensed prescriptions by state, by quarter; and inpatient hospitalizations by federal benefit, state, and age group. We further examined discrepancies between demographic characteristics and disease states, in particular frequencies of pregnancy complications among men and women beyond childbearing age, and prostate cancers among women. RESULTS: Dispensed prescriptions generally increased steadily and consistently over time, suggesting that these claims may be complete. A commercially-available National Drug Code lookup database was able to identify the dispensed drug for 95.2-99.4% of these claims. Because of co-coverage by Medicare, Medicaid data appeared to miss a substantial number of hospitalizations among beneficiaries ≥ 45 years of age. Pregnancy complication diagnoses were rare in males and in females ≥ 60 years of age, and prostate cancer diagnoses were rare in females. CONCLUSIONS: CMS claims from five large states obtained directly from CMS and its contractors appeared to be of high quality. Researchers using Medicaid data to study hospital outcomes should obtain supplemental Medicare data on dual enrollees, even for non-elders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Gastrointestinal bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage in concomitant users of warfarin and antihyperlipidemics.

BACKGROUND: Drug interactions, particularly those involving warfarin, are a major clinical and public health problem. Minimizing serious bleeding caused by anticoagulants is a recent major focus of the United States (US) Department of Health and Human Services. This study quantified the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) among concomitant users of warfarin and individual antihyperlipidemics. METHODS: The authors conducted a high-dimensional propensity score-adjusted cohort study of new concomitant users of warfarin and an antihyperlipidemic, among US Medicaid beneficiaries from five states during 1999-2011. Exposure was defined by concomitant use of warfarin plus one of eight antihyperlipidemics. The primary outcome measure was a composite of GIB/ICH within the first 30days of concomitant use. As a secondary outcome measure, GIB/ICH was examined within the first 180days of concomitant use. RESULTS: Among 236,691 persons newly-exposed to warfarin and an antihyperlipidemic, the crude incidence of GIB/ICH was 13.2 (95% confidence interval 12.7 to 13.8) per 100person-years. Users were predominantly older, female, and Caucasian. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for warfarin and individual statins were consistent with no association. Warfarin+gemfibrozil was associated with an 80% increased risk of GIB/ICH within the first month of concomitant use (aHR=1.8, 1.4 to 2.4). Warfarin+fenofibrate was associated with a similar increased risk (aHR=1.8, 1.2 to 2.7), yet with an onset during the second month of concomitant use. CONCLUSIONS: Among warfarin-treated persons, the use of fibrates-but not statins-increases the risk of hospital presentation for GIB/ICH.

Predicting prolonged dose titration in patients starting warfarin.

PURPOSE: Patients initiating warfarin therapy generally experience a dose-titration period of weeks to months, during which time they are at higher risk of both thromboembolic and bleeding events. Accurate prediction of prolonged dose titration could help clinicians determine which patients might be better treated by alternative anticoagulants that, while more costly, do not require dose titration. METHODS: A prediction model was derived in a prospective cohort of patients starting warfarin (n = 390), using Cox regression, and validated in an external cohort (n = 663) from a later time period. Prolonged dose titration was defined as a dose-titration period >12 weeks. Predictor variables were selected using a modified best subsets algorithm, using leave-one-out cross-validation to reduce overfitting. RESULTS: The final model had five variables: warfarin indication, insurance status, number of doctor's visits in the previous year, smoking status, and heart failure. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) in the derivation cohort was 0.66 (95%CI 0.60, 0.74) using leave-one-out cross-validation, but only 0.59 (95%CI 0.54, 0.64) in the external validation cohort, and varied across clinics. Including genetic factors in the model did not improve the area under the ROC curve (0.59; 95%CI 0.54, 0.65). Relative utility curves indicated that the model was unlikely to provide a clinically meaningful benefit compared with no prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prolonged dose titration cannot be accurately predicted in warfarin patients using traditional clinical, social, and genetic predictors, and that accurate prediction will need to accommodate heterogeneities across clinical sites and over time. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.