The impact of FDA regulatory activities on incident dispensing of LABA-containing medication: 2005-2011.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence of safety issues associated with long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatment has led to multiple regulatory activities by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on this class of medications. This study describes the impact of the regulatory activities on incident LABA-containing medication dispensing. METHODS: A monthly rolling cohort of asthma patients who were eligible to initiate a LABA-containing product was created in the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database between January 2005 and June 2011. Cohorts of individuals who initiated LABA were examined for the changes in the proportions of single-ingredient to fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-LABA initiators, appropriate initiation of LABA-containing products, and use of controller medications. The impact of the 2005 and 2010 FDA regulatory activities associated with LABA-containing products was measured using interrupted time series with segmented regression. RESULTS: LABA-containing product initiation was declining prior to the 2005 regulatory activities and continued to decline over the study period, accompanied by increased initiation of fixed dose ICS-LABA among LABA initiators. While the 2010 regulatory activities had no immediate impact on the proportion of LABA initiation in patients with prior controller medication dispensing and/or poor asthma control, there was an increasing positive trend toward LABA initiation in the appropriate patient population after the regulatory activities. CONCLUSION: The 2005 and 2010 FDA regulatory activities likely had an impact on communicating the safety concerns of LABA products. However, the impact cannot be viewed independent of scientific publications, guidelines for asthma treatment and other regulatory activities.

Association Between Changes in CMS Reimbursement Policy and Drug Labels for Erythrocyte-Stimulating Agents With Outcomes for Older Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis Covered by Fee-for-Service Medicare.

IMPORTANCE: In 2011, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) changed its reimbursement policy for hemodialysis to a bundled comprehensive payment system that included the cost of erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs). Also in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration revised the drug label for ESAs, recommending more conservative dosing in patients with chronic kidney disease. In response to concerns that these measures could have adverse effects on patient care and outcomes, the CMS and the FDA initiated a collaboration to assess the effect. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the changes in reimbursement policy and the ESA drug label on patients who underwent incident hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this retrospective cohort study, patients 66 years or older who had undergone incident hemodialysis, and were enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, or D for at least 12 months prior to hemodialysis initiation between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, were recruited from hemodialysis centers across the United States. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on their date of hemodialysis initiation and followed: January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, for the prepolicy cohort and July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013, for the postpolicy cohort, with the exclusion of January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, as a transition period. INTERVENTIONS: Changes in CMS reimbursement policy for dialysis and the FDA label for ESAs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and all-cause mortality; hospitalized congestive heart failure (H-CHF); venous thromboembolism; and red blood cell transfusions. Secondary outcomes included evaluating effects on black and other patient subgroups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 69 718 incident hemodialysis patients were similar between cohorts. Compared with the prepolicy period, the risk of MACE, death, H-CHF, and venous thromboembolism were similar in the postpolicy period, and the risk of stroke decreased (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.93; P = .01); the use of ESAs also decreased, and the rate of blood transfusions increased (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12; P < .001). In the post-postpolicy period, black patients had a significant reduction in risk of MACE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P < .001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After the bundling policy and ESA labeling changes in 2011, the risks of MACE and death for patients 66 years or older and covered by fee-for-service Medicare who had undergone incident hemodialysis did not change; the risk of stroke was reduced, and the rate of blood transfusions modestly increased. Black patients had substantial reductions in the risks of MACE and death.

Comparative Risk of Anaphylactic Reactions Associated With Intravenous Iron Products.

IMPORTANCE: All intravenous (IV) iron products are associated with anaphylaxis, but the comparative safety of each product has not been well established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of anaphylaxis among marketed IV iron products. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective new user cohort study of IV iron recipients (n = 688,183) enrolled in the US fee-for-service Medicare program from January 2003 to December 2013. Analyses involving ferumoxytol were limited to the period January 2010 to December 2013. EXPOSURES: Administrations of IV iron dextran, gluconate, sucrose, or ferumoxytol as reported in outpatient Medicare claims data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Anaphylaxis was identified using a prespecified and validated algorithm defined with standard diagnosis and procedure codes and applied to both inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims. The absolute and relative risks of anaphylaxis were estimated, adjusting for imbalances among treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 274 anaphylaxis cases were identified at first exposure, with an additional 170 incident anaphylaxis cases identified during subsequent IV iron administrations. The risk for anaphylaxis at first exposure was 68 per 100,000 persons for iron dextran (95% CI, 57.8-78.7 per 100,000) and 24 per 100,000 persons for all nondextran IV iron products combined (iron sucrose, gluconate, and ferumoxytol) (95% CI, 20.0-29.5 per 100,000) , with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 2.6 (95% CI, 2.0-3.3; P < .001). At first exposure, when compared with iron sucrose, the adjusted OR of anaphylaxis for iron dextran was 3.6 (95% CI, 2.4-5.4); for iron gluconate, 2.0 (95% CI 1.2, 3.5); and for ferumoxytol, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.1-4.3). The estimated cumulative anaphylaxis risk following total iron repletion of 1000 mg administered within a 12-week period was highest with iron dextran (82 per 100,000 persons, 95% CI, 70.5- 93.1) and lowest with iron sucrose (21 per 100,000 persons, 95% CI, 15.3- 26.4). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients in the US Medicare nondialysis population with first exposure to IV iron, the risk of anaphylaxis was highest for iron dextran and lowest for iron sucrose.

Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in general practice settings has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We formed new-user cohorts of propensity score-matched elderly patients enrolled in Medicare who initiated dabigatran or warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation between October 2010 and December 2012. Among 134 414 patients with 37 587 person-years of follow-up, there were 2715 primary outcome events. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing dabigatran with warfarin (reference) were as follows: ischemic stroke, 0.80 (0.67-0.96); intracranial hemorrhage, 0.34 (0.26-0.46); major gastrointestinal bleeding, 1.28 (1.14-1.44); acute myocardial infarction, 0.92 (0.78-1.08); and death, 0.86 (0.77-0.96). In the subgroup treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily, there was no difference in risk compared with warfarin for any outcome except intracranial hemorrhage, in which case dabigatran risk was reduced. Most patients treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily appeared not to have severe renal impairment, the intended population for this dose. In the dabigatran 150-mg twice daily subgroup, the magnitude of effect for each outcome was greater than in the combined-dose analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In general practice settings, dabigatran was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and death and increased risk of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared with warfarin in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. These associations were most pronounced in patients treated with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily, whereas the association of 75 mg twice daily with study outcomes was indistinguishable from warfarin except for a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage with dabigatran.

Cardiovascular and mortality risks in older Medicare patients treated with varenicline or bupropion for smoking cessation: an observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: To compare cardiovascular and mortality risks in elderly patients treated with varenicline or bupropion for smoking cessation. METHODS: Elderly Medicare beneficiaries were entered into new-user cohorts of varenicline or bupropion for smoking cessation and followed on therapy for primary outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, mortality, and a composite of any of these events. Secondary outcomes were unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and a composite of any primary or secondary outcome event. Propensity score stratification was used to adjust for baseline differences in potential confounding factors. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards, with bupropion as reference. RESULTS: In cohorts of 74 824 varenicline and 14 133 bupropion users, there were 164 AMI, 96 stroke, 87 death, 317 primary composite, and 814 secondary composite events while on therapy. The HRs (95%CI) were 0.79 (0.50-1.24) for AMI, 1.27 (0.63-2.55) for stroke, 0.58 (0.30-1.13) for death, 0.84 (0.58-1.23) for the primary composite, and 0.92 (0.73-1.14) for the secondary composite. The risk of AMI or the primary composite outcome did not differ in subgroups defined by age, diabetes status, or presence of underlying ischemic heart disease. Only 30% of patients remained on either study drug beyond their first prescription. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular and mortality risks were not increased in older patients treated with varenicline compared with bupropion for smoking cessation. A potential increase in the risk of stroke with varenicline could not be excluded. Treatment persistence with either drug was low. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Cardiovascular and mortality risk in elderly Medicare beneficiaries treated with olmesartan versus other angiotensin receptor blockers.

PURPOSE: In the randomized trial, Randomized Olmesartan and Diabetes Microalbuminuria Prevention, acute cardiovascular death was increased nearly fivefold in diabetic patients treated with high-dose olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), compared with placebo. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries were entered into new-user cohorts of olmesartan or other ARBs and followed on therapy for occurrence of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. Analyses focused on specific subgroups defined by diabetes status, ARB dose, and duration of therapy. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression, with other ARBs as reference. RESULTS: A total of 158,054 olmesartan and 724,673 other ARB users were followed for 54,285 and 260,390 person-years, respectively, during which 9237 endpoint events occurred. Lower-dose olmesartan was not associated with increased risk for any endpoint, regardless of duration of use. High-dose olmesartan for 6 months or longer was associated with increased risk of death in patients with diabetes (HR 2.03, 95%CI 1.09-3.75, p = 0.02) and with reduced risk in nondiabetic patients (HR 0.46, 95%CI 0.24-0.86, p = 0.01). Some, but not all, sensitivity analyses suggested that selective prescribing of olmesartan to healthier patients (channeling bias) may have accounted for the reduced risk in nondiabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose olmesartan was associated with an increased risk of death in diabetic patients treated for 6 months or longer and with a reduced risk of death in nondiabetic patients, when compared with use of other ARBs. This latter effect was probably because of selective prescribing of olmesartan to healthier patients, although effect modification cannot be excluded. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.