Ruxolitinib en pacientes que recibieron trasplante alogénico de células progenitoras hematopoyéticas y desarrollan enfermedad de injerto contra huésped (EICH) crónica, refractarios o dependientes de corticoides / Ruxolitinib in patients who received allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic progenitor cells and developed chronic liver disease (EICH), refractory or dependent on corticosteroids

INTRODUCCIÓN: Cuadro clínico: La Enfermedad de Injerto Contra Huésped (EICH) es una complicación multisistémica frecuente y potencialmente mortal del Trasplante Alogénico de Células Progenitoras Hematopoyéticas (TACPH). Las complicaciones están influenciadas por factores relacionados con el paciente como la edad, el estado funcional, comorbilidades, y pueden afectar la piel, boca, ojos, pulmón, hígado e intestinos. La EICH crónica se presenta entre el 30% - 70% de pacientes post TACPH. Entre los factores de riesgo se ha descrito el aumento de la edad del huésped, el estado del citomegalovirus (CMV) del donante y del huésped, la seropositividad del virus de Epstein-Barr (VEB) del donante, el trasplante de células madre de sangre periférica versus trasplante de médula ósea, EICH aguda previa, la presencia de un ambiente estéril (incluida la descontaminación intestinal), y el desajuste inmunitario. Según la gravedad, la EICH crónica puede ser leve, moderada o severa. La clasificación orientará el tratamiento y el pronóstico de la enfermedad. La clasificación se basa en el sistema de puntuación del Instituto Nacional de Salud de los Estados Unidos (NIH por sus siglas en inglés) modificado el cual incluye evaluación de la piel, la boca, los ojos, el tracto gastrointestinal, el hígado, los pulmones, las articulaciones/fascia y el tracto genital. En casos de EICH crónica leve, generalmente se puede manejar con tratamiento localizado o tópico, a menos que la manifestación clínica sea extensa. En pacientes en las que la EICH crónica leve, mo

Prevalence and Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Gulf Countries with a Focus on Inhaled Pharmacotherapy.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable, progressive disease and the third leading cause of death worldwide. The epidemiological data of COPD from Gulf countries are very limited, as it remains underdiagnosed and underestimated. Risk factors for COPD include tobacco cigarette smoking, water pipe smoking (Shisha), exposure to air pollutants, occupational dusts, fumes, and chemicals. Inadequate treatment of COPD leads to worsening of disease. The 2024 GOLD guidelines recommend use of inhaled bronchodilators, corticosteroids, and adjunct therapies for treatment and management of COPD patients based on an individual assessment of the severity of symptoms and risk of exacerbations. This article reviews COPD pharmacotherapy in the Gulf countries and explores the role of nebulization in the management of COPD in this region. Methods: To review the COPD pharmacotherapy in the Gulf Countries, literature search was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar databases (before December 2022), using search terms such as COPD, nebulization, inhalers/inhalation, aerosols, and Gulf countries. Relevant articles from the reference list of identified studies were reviewed. Consensus statements, expert opinion, and other published review articles were included. Results: In the Gulf countries, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), soft mist inhalers, and nebulizers are used for drug delivery to COPD patients. pMDIs and DPIs are most prone to errors in technique and other common device handling errors. Nebulization is another mode of inhalation drug delivery, which is beneficial in certain patient populations such as the elderly and patients with cognitive impairment, motor or neuromuscular disorders, and other comorbidities. Conclusion: There is no major difference between Gulf countries and rest of the world in the approach to management of COPD. Nebulizers should be considered for patients who have difficulties in accessing or using MDIs and DPIs, irrespective of geographical location.

Retrospective cohort study investigating synergism of air pollution and corticosteroid exposure in promoting cardiovascular and thromboembolic events in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the synergistic effects created by fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and corticosteroid use on hospitalisation and mortality in older adults at high risk for cardiovascular thromboembolic events (CTEs). DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study using a US nationwide administrative healthcare claims database. PARTICIPANTS: A 50% random sample of participants with high-risk conditions for CTE from the 2008-2016 Medicare Fee-for-Service population. EXPOSURES: Corticosteroid therapy and seasonal-average PM2.5. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidences of myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome (MI/ACS), ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, heart failure (HF), venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation and all-cause mortality. We assessed additive interactions between PM2.5 and corticosteroids using estimates of the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) obtained using marginal structural models for causal inference. RESULTS: Among the 1 936 786 individuals in the high CTE risk cohort (mean age 76.8, 40.0% male, 87.4% white), the mean PM2.5 exposure level was 8.3±2.4 µg/m3 and 37.7% had at least one prescription for a systemic corticosteroid during follow-up. For all outcomes, we observed increases in risk associated with corticosteroid use and with increasing PM2.5 exposure. PM2.5 demonstrated a non-linear relationship with some outcomes. We also observed evidence of an interaction existing between corticosteroid use and PM2.5 for some CTEs. For an increase in PM2.5 from 8 µg/m3 to 12 µg/m3 (a policy-relevant change), the RERI of corticosteroid use and PM2.5 was significant for HF (15.6%, 95% CI 4.0%, 27.3%). Increasing PM2.5 from 5 µg/m3 to 10 µg/m3 yielded significant RERIs for incidences of HF (32.4; 95% CI 14.9%, 49.9%) and MI/ACSs (29.8%; 95% CI 5.5%, 54.0%). CONCLUSION: PM2.5 and systemic corticosteroid use were independently associated with increases in CTE hospitalisations. We also found evidence of significant additive interactions between the two exposures for HF and MI/ACSs suggesting synergy between these two exposures.

Assessment of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes Beyond Week 16 in Clinical Trials of Systemic Agents Used for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Combination with Topical Corticosteroids.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease requiring efficacious and safe long-term therapy. Several new systemic treatments have recently been approved for use in patients with moderate to severe AD. However, head-to-head comparisons have not been conducted for all the currently available treatments for AD. Multiple network meta-analyses have compared efficacy of these different therapies during the initial 16-week treatment period, but not beyond week 16. Therefore, understanding the differences in key trial design and statistical methods is essential for evaluating long-term efficacy, making cross-trial comparisons, and informing treatment decisions. This focused narrative review provides an overview of data and trial methodology to guide clinicians in evaluating longer-term efficacy and safety of currently approved systemic treatments for patients with AD. We discuss important elements of longer-term trial designs and statistical analysis strategies that should be considered based on our experience as clinical trialists. In addition, a summary of key efficacy results of published, longer-term, phase III clinical trials of US Food and Drug Administration-approved, novel systemic treatments (i.e., dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib) is provided, including the design and data handling methods used. Long-term safety considerations and differences in the time-effect and safety profiles of various medications are also noted to help inform clinical decisions for individual patients. Overall, the findings of these trials support efficacy in long-term treatment with novel systemic agents for patients with AD.

Risk of Infection After Total Knee or Hip Arthroplasty After Receipt of Multiple Corticosteroid or Hyaluronic Acid Injections.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the relationship between the quantity of preoperative corticosteroid injections (CSIs) or hyaluronic acid injections (HAIs) and postoperative infection risk after total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA). We aimed to (1) determine whether the number of injections administered before TKA/THA procedures is associated with postoperative infections and (2) establish whether infection risk varies by injection type. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 230,487 THAs and 371,511 TKAs from the 2017 to 2018 Medicare Limited Data Set. The quantity of CSI or HAI, defined as receiving either CSI or HAI ≤2 years before TKA/THA, was identified and categorized as 0, 1, 2, or >2. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative infection. Multivariable regression models measured the association between the number of injections and 90-day postoperative infection. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: The percentage of THA patients receiving 1, 2, and >2 preoperative CSIs was 6.1%, 1.6%, and 0.8%, respectively. Receiving >2 CSIs within 2 years before THA was associated with higher odds of 90-day postoperative infection (odds ratios = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.74, P = 0.02). The percentage of TKA patients receiving 1, 2, and >2 CSIs was 3.0%, 1.2%, and 1.1%, respectively. For HAIs in TKA patients, percentage receiving injections was 98.3%, 0.6%, 0.2%, and 0.9%, respectively. Quantity of CSIs or HAIs administered was not associated with postoperative infection among TKA patients. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving >2 injections before THA had higher odds of 90-day postoperative infection. This finding was not observed in TKA patients. These results suggest that the use of >2 injections within 2 years of THA should be avoided.

Health Care Costs With Sustained Oral Corticosteroid Use in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare health care costs, health care resource utilization, and adverse events associated with sustained oral corticosteroid (OCS) use versus no OCS use in systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data (January 1, 2006-July 31, 2019) from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus aged ≥5 years with ≥24 months of continuous enrollment. Health care costs, health care resource utilization, and OCS-related adverse events were assessed. The sustained OCS cohort (defined as ≥12 months of continuous OCS use) was divided into exposure categories based on the number of 6-month classification periods with >5 mg/d OCS (0, 1-2, or 3-4). FINDINGS: Of the 6234 patients in the sustained OCS use cohort, there were 1587 (25.5%) patients with 0 periods of >5 mg/d OCS use, 2087 (33.5%) patients with 1 to 2 periods of >5 mg/d OCS use, and 2560 (41.1%) patients with 3 to 4 periods of >5 mg/d OCS use; the no OCS use cohort included 7828 patients. Adjusted health care cost differences (95% CIs) were significantly greater for patients with 0, 1 to 2, and 3 to 4 periods of OCS use >5 mg/d versus the no OCS use cohort ($7774 [5426-10,223], $21,738 [18,898-25,321], and $30,119 [26,492-33,774], respectively). A higher proportion of patients in all OCS exposure categories required health care resource utilization (≥99.7% vs 93.4%) and experienced OCS-related adverse events (94.3%-96.8% vs 82.6%) versus the no OCS use cohort, with more periods of OCS use >5 mg/d associated with increased health care resource utilization and adverse events. IMPLICATIONS: Sustained OCS use in systemic lupus erythematosus was associated with high economic burden, health care resource utilization, and OCS-related adverse events. These data highlight the need for health care providers to carefully consider OCS use in systemic lupus erythematosus.

The Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroids on the Prognosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Background: A comprehensive analysis of the effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COPD in a real-world setting is required due to safety concerns regarding ICS in COPD. This study aimed to explore the impact of ICS on the prognosis of Asian COPD patients in the real-life world. Methods: We examined 978 COPD patients registered in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) database and with their data linked to Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) data. The outcome measures were ascertained by HIRA from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012. This study enrolled two arms; ICS users (N = 85, mean age = 66.7 ± 8.9 years) and non-ICS users (N = 893, mean age = 63.7 ± 9.7 years). Results: Compared to the non-ICS users, the ICS users had a higher rate of pneumonia, tuberculosis, and acute exacerbations (P<0.05). Hospitalization due to respiratory causes was also higher among ICS users (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that acute exacerbation was independently associated with the development of pneumonia (P<0.05), whereas ICS therapy had a tendency to be associated with pneumonia. Another multivariate analysis demonstrated that old age, FEV1, ICS therapy, and pneumonia were independently associated with the occurrence of acute exacerbation (P<0.05). The concomitant pneumonia (HR = 3.353, P = 0.004) was independently associated with higher mortality (P<0.05). Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that the ICS users had a higher rate of pneumonia and tuberculosis and the concomitant pneumonia was independently associated with higher mortality, highlighting the importance of cautious and targeted administration of ICS in COPD.

Prolonged oral corticosteroid treatment in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: An evaluation of 12-month economic and clinical burden.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged, high-dose corticosteroid treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is associated with substantial health care costs, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause health care costs, HCRU, and oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related AEs among patients with prevalent OCS use and patients without OCS use. METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study (GSK study 214100) used claims data from the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims - US, IQVIA, Inc, database between January 1, 2006, and July 31, 2019, to identify patients with SLE. Patients with at least 1 OCS pharmacy claim during the study period and continuous OCS use during the 6-month pre-index (baseline) period (index date is the date of the first OCS claim following 6 months' continuous use) formed the "prevalent OCS use cohort." This cohort was subdivided based on the level of OCS exposure during the 12-month observation period, ie, the number of 6-month periods of greater than 5 mg/day OCS use (0, 1, or 2). Patients without OCS claims formed the "no OCS use cohort." All patients had continuous enrollment during the baseline and observation periods, had at least 1 inpatient or at least 2 outpatient SLE diagnosis codes during baseline, and were aged at least 5 years at index. A 2-part model, a generalized linear regression model with a negative binomial distribution, and a multivariate logistic regression model were used to compare health care costs, HCRU, and the odds of developing an OCS-related AE between cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: The no OCS use and prevalent OCS use cohorts included 21,517 and 16,209 patients, respectively. Adjusted health care cost differences (95% CI) were significantly lower for the no OCS use cohort vs all prevalent OCS use exposure categories ($5,439 [$4,537-$6,371] vs $17,856 [$16,368-$19,498]), driven by inpatient stays and outpatient visits; HCRU was also significantly lower (adjusted incidence rate ratios vs no OCS use cohort [95% CI]: 1.20 [1.16-1.23] vs 1.47 [1.41-1.52]). Health care costs and HCRU increased with increasing length of OCS exposure. OCS-related AEs occurred more frequently for all prevalent OCS use exposure categories vs the no OCS use cohort (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [1.25-1.55] vs 2.32 [2.02-2.68]), driven by hematologic/oncologic and immune system-related AEs. The mean (SD) average daily dose of OCS increased with increasing periods of prevalent OCS use (2.5 [1.3], 6.9 [31.1], and 34.6 [1,717.3] mg/day, respectively, for patients with 0, 1, and 2 periods of OCS use). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalent OCS use incurs a substantial clinical and economic burden, highlighting the need for restricted OCS doses and durations. DISCLOSURES: This study (GSK Study 214100) was funded by GSK. GSK was involved in designing the study, contributing to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, supporting the authors in the development of the manuscript, and funding the medical writing assistance. All authors, including those employed by GSK, approved the content of the submitted manuscript and were involved in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr DerSarkissian, Dr Duh, and Mr Benson are employees of Analysis Group, which received research funding from GSK to conduct this study. Dr Wang, Ms Gu, and Mr Vu are former employees of Analysis Group. Mr Bell is an employee of GSK and holds stocks and shares in the company. Ms Averell and Dr Huang are former employees of GSK and held stocks and shares in the company at the time of the study.

Assessment of Drug Usage Pattern among Bronchial Asthma Patients in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital, Tamilnadu: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the small airways. Chronic inflammation often causes hyper responsiveness of airways with wheezing, breathing difficulty, cough and chest tightness. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the drug usage pattern of anti-asthma drugs among asthma patients. METHODS: The present study was a prospective, observational cross-sectional study carried out among 422 outpatients being treated at the respiratory medicine department, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre. Data regarding the prescribing indicators and patient indicators were collected from the patients' prescription slips and entered in the preformed proforma. Prescribing indicators were taken into consideration in evaluating the rationality of prescriptions. RESULTS: In the present study, 49% of patients were between the age group of 20-40 years. Genderwise distribution showed 58.05% of males and 41.95% of females. A family history of asthma was seen in 68% of the study population. The present study reported smoking among 51% and tobacco chewing in 21% of the study population. Low economic strata were observed in 77.9% of the study population. According to asthma grading, 65.8% were in the mild intermittent, and 25% were in the mild persistent group. Patients were on ß2 agonists (35.4%) and corticosteroids (32%). The most commonly used fixed drug combination was a short-acting ß2 agonist with corticosteroid (40.5%). A total of 68% of drugs were used by the inhalational route and 29% by the oral route. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that, the most frequently prescribed drug was a short-acting ß2 agonist with corticosteroid in a fixed-dose combination via inhalational route.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

A 4-Year Retrospective Claims Analysis of Oral Corticosteroid Use and Health Conditions in Newly Diagnosed Medicare FFS Patients with COPD.

Purpose: We analyzed population-level administrative claims data for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries to provide insights on systemic oral corticosteroid (OCS) use patterns and associated health conditions and acute events among patients newly diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Background: COPD is a progressive inflammatory disease of the lungs, characterized by acute exacerbations that may lead to increased mortality. Short courses of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) are recommended to reduce recovery time from exacerbations, although SCS use has been associated with increased risk of adverse events. Methods: This study used 2013-2019 Medicare 100% FFS research identifiable files, which contain all Medicare Parts A, B, and D paid claims incurred by 100% of Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Descriptive statistics for patients newly diagnosed with COPD were analyzed, including OCS use, select health conditions and acute events, and COPD exacerbations. Statistical models were used to analyze the relationship between the incidence of select health conditions and events and cumulative OCS dosage. Results: Of Medicare FFS patients newly diagnosed with COPD, 36% received OCS in the 48 months following diagnosis, and 38% of OCS episodes lasted longer than the recommended 5-7 days. Patients had a variety of health conditions or acute events in the 24-month period prior to new COPD diagnosis, such as hypertension, depression/anxiety, type 2 diabetes, or osteoporosis, that could heighten the risks of OCS use. Patients treated with >1000 mg of prednisolone equivalent OCS in the 48 months following COPD diagnosis had a higher incidence of new conditions or events, including cardiovascular disease, heart failure, hypertension, obesity, dyspepsia, infections, and depression/anxiety, than patients with no OCS use. Conclusion: These results highlight the potential risks of OCS in COPD treatment, including prolonged use among complex Medicare patients, and reinforce the importance of preventive treatment strategies and therapy optimization early in the disease course.

Systemic Corticosteroid-related Adverse Outcomes and Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis.

PURPOSE: Nasal polyps (NPs) develop in 20% to 30% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Severe forms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) may be treated with systemic corticosteroids (SCSs), which increase the risk for adverse clinical outcomes. This study compared the incidence of SCS-related adverse outcomes and health care resource utilization and costs between patients with CRSwNP who had SCS exposure and those who did not have SCS exposure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used health care claims data from adult patients with CRSwNP identified in the IBMⓇ MarketScanⓇ Databases between January 2003 and June 2019. The first SCS prescription date in SCS users or a matched date in SCS nonusers (controls) represented the index date. Enrollment for ≥1 year before and after the index date was required. SCS-related adverse outcomes and costs were compared between all SCS users and controls, and among subgroups of patients who had claims for 1-3 and ≥4 SCS prescriptions in the 12-month postindex period. Comparisons were also made among SCS users and controls who previously had and did not have NP surgery, and those with and without comorbid asthma. Inverse probability of treatment weights was applied to all comparisons, which were evaluated for a variable-length follow-up period. FINDINGS: SCS users (n = 37,740) had a greater risk for any adverse outcome than controls (n = 7032) (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16). The risk for adverse outcomes was highest in the subgroups that did not have NP surgery and that had ≥4 SCS claims (n = 2993) versus controls who did not have NP surgery (n = 5078) (IRR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.44). Similarly, patients with asthma and ≥4 SCS claims (n = 4195) had a greater risk for SCS-related outcomes versus controls with asthma (n = 1226) (IRR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.55). SCS users incurred 60% higher all-cause costs versus non-SCS users (P < 0.001). IMPLICATIONS: In patients with CRSwNP, SCS use was associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes and with increased health care costs compared with controls without SCS exposure. Alternative treatment strategies that avoid and/or reduce SCS use may decrease health care costs and the risk for adverse outcomes among patients with CRSwNP.

Eficacia y seguridad del calcipotriol y el dipropionato de betametasona en pacientes adultos con psoriasis vulgar en placas moderada o severa, no respondedores a la terapia tópica y sistémica convencional, y no tributarios a terapia biológica / Efficacy and safety of calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate in adult patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis vulgaris, unresponsive to conventional topical and systemic therapy, and not amenable to biological therapy

ANTECEDENTES: En el marco de la metodología ad hoc para evaluar solicitudes de tecnologías sanitarias, aprobada mediante Resolución de Institución de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación N° 111-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021, se ha elaborado el presente dictamen que expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad del calcipotriol y dipropionato de betametasona (DB) en pacientes adultos con psoriasis vulgar en placas moderada o severa, no respondedores a la terapia tópica y sistémica convencional, y no tributarios a terapia biológica. Así, la médico dermatóloga, Dra. Lorraine Lía Málaga Medina del Servicio de Dermatología del Hospital Nacional Carlos Seguin Escobedo, siguiendo la Directiva N.° 003-IETSI-ESSALUD-2016, envió al Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI la solicitud de uso por fuera del petitorio farmacológico de EsSalud el producto farmacéutico calcipotriol en combinación con el (DB), para el tratamiento de los pacientes adultos con psoriasis vulgar en placas moderada o severa, no respondedores a la terapia tópica y sistémica convencional, y no tributarios a terapia biológica. ASPECTOS GENERALES: La psoriasis vulgar en placas es una enfermedad crónica de la piel que se presenta como placas eritematosas y escamosas que aparecen, mayoritariamente, en el cuero cabelludo, el tronco, los glúteos, y los miembros inferiores y superiores (de Rie et al., 2004). Esta enfermedad es considerada como un problema de salud pública por su alta prevalencia, alto riesgo de morbilidad y porque deteriora la calidad de vida y salud mental en los pacientes que la padecen (Boehncke & Schón, 2015). La psoriasis afecta del 1 % al 3 % de la población mundial; y la psoriasis vulgar en placas representa hasta el 90 % de todas las manifestaciones de la psoriasis (Augustin et al., 2010). Además, la presencia de esta enfermedad se asocia a mayor riesgo de sufrir artritis psoriásica, enfermedades cardiovasculares, diabetes mellitus, obesidad, enfermedad del hígado graso no alcohólico y enfermedades inflamatorias del intestino (Gisondi et al., 2020). Asimismo, el 75 % de estos pacientes percibe un deterioro en su calidad de vida y cerca del 10 % ha tenido ideación suicida (Bhosle et al., 2006). METODOLOGÍA: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva con el objetivo de identificar la mejor evidencia disponible sobre la eficacia y seguridad del CAL-DB, en comparación con mejor terapia de soporte, en pacientes adultos con psoriasis vulgar en placas moderada o severa no respondedores a la terapia tópica y sistémica convencional y no tributarios a terapia biológica. La búsqueda se realizó en las bases de datos bibliográfica de PubMed, The Cochrane Library y LILACS. Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda manual dentro de las páginas web pertenecientes a grupos que realizan evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC) incluyendo el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), la Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ), la Scottish I ntercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), la New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), la National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI), el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), el Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG), el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), la Comissáo Nacional de I ncorpornáo de Tecnologías no Sistema Único de Saúde (CONITEC), el Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS) y el Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS). Finalmente, se realizó una búsqueda adicional en la página web de registro de ensayos clínicos (EC) www.clinicaltrials.gov, para identificar EC en curso o aún no publicados. RESULTADOS: Tras ampliar los criterios de selección de documentos, se incluyó una GPC publicada por el NICE (2012) que realiza recomendaciones sobre la evaluación y el tratamiento de pacientes con psoriasis vulgar de severidad moderada o severa. Además, se incluyeron dos ETS publicadas por la CONITEC (2012), y la HAS (2019) que tuvieron como objetivo evaluar la evidencia disponible acerca de la eficacia y seguridad del uso del Cal-DB en pacientes adultos con psoriasis vulgar en placas e incluyeron, en su cuerpo de evidencia, ECA donde participaron pacientes con psoriasis vulgar de severidad moderada a severa. También, se incluyó el estudio pivotal citado en la ficha técnica del Daivobet ® aprobada por DIGEMID (2018), el cual es un ECA de fase II que comparó la eficacia y seguridad del uso del CAL-DB versus el calcipotriol en monoterapia, el DB en monoterapia y placebo, en pacientes con psoriasis vulgar de cualquier severidad de enfermedad (Fleming et al., 2010). Por último, se incluyó un estudio observacional que comparó el uso de la fototerapia y el CAL-DB en pacientes con severidad de enfermedad de moderada a severa (Polanska et al., 2019). ONCLUSIÓN: Por lo expuesto, el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación no aprueba el uso combinado del calcipotriol y el dipropionato de betametasona en pacientes adultos con psoriasis vulgar moderada o severa, no respondedores a la terapia tópica y sistémica convencional y no tributarios a terapia biológica, como producto farmacéutico no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud.

Associação fixa de hidrato de calcipotriol e dipropionato de betametasona para psoríase vulgar após falha de corticoide tópico isolado / Fixed association of calcipotriol hydrate and betamethasone dipropionate for psoriasis vulgaris after failure of topical corticosteroid alone

INTRODUÇÃO: A psoríase vulgar, também conhecida como psoríase em placas, é uma doença inflamatória crônica que impacta significativamente na qualidade de vida dos indivíduos acometidos. Trata-se do tipo de psoríase mais prevalente na população (75-90%), caracterizada por lesões cutâneas localizadas principalmente nos joelhos, cotovelos, couro cabeludo e região lombossacra. O tratamento de primeira linha consiste na administração de medicamentos pela via tópica, incluindo ceratolíticos, emolientes e corticoides, isolados ou em associação. Contudo, após a falha terapêutica com corticoide tópico, recomenda-se a associação de análogos de vitamina D (ex: calcipotriol) ao esquema terapêutico, considerando que estudos prévios apontaram a superioridade, em termos de eficácia, desta combinação em relação à monoterapia com qualquer um eles. Porém, considerando que a adesão ao tratamento contribui significativamente para o sucesso do tratamento, a associação fixa de calcipotriol e corticoide, com uma única aplicação diária, pode representar uma estratégia terapêutica mais viável. TECNOLOGIA: Hidrato de Calcipotriol + Dipropionato de Betametasona pomada (Daivobet®). PERGUNTA: A associação de hidrato de calcipotriol + dipropionato de betametasona pomada é eficaz, segura e viável e

The Impact of the Pay-for-Performance Program on the Outcome of COPD Patients in Taiwan After One Year.

Objective: To investigate the impact of a multidisciplinary intervention on the clinical outcomes of patients with COPD. Methods: This study retrospectively extracted the data of patients enrolled in the national pay-for-performance (P4P) program for COPD in four hospitals. Only COPD patients who received regular follow-up for at least one year in the P4P program between September 2018 and December 2020 were included. Results: A total of 1081 patients were included in this study. Among them, 424 (39.2%), 287 (26.5%), 179 (16.6%), and 191 (17.7%) patients were classified as COPD Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. Dual therapy with long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) was the most used inhaled bronchodilator at baseline (n = 477, 44.1%) patients, followed by LAMA monotherapy (n = 195, 18.0%), triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA/LAMA (n = 184, 17.0%), and ICS/LABA combination (n = 165, 15.3%). After one year of intervention, 374 (34.6%) and 323 (29.9%) patients had their pre- and post-bronchodilator-forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) increase of more than 100 mL. Both the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) scores had a mean change of -2.2 ± 5.5 and -0.3 ± 0.9, respectively. The improvement in pulmonary function and symptom score were observed across four groups. The decreased number of exacerbations was only observed in Groups C and D, and not in Groups A and B. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated that the intervention in the P4P program could help improve the clinical outcome of COPD patients. It also showed us a different view on the use of dual therapy, which has a lower cost in Taiwan.

Eficacia y seguridad de romiplostim en pacientes pediátricos con trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica, respuesta inadecuada o intolerancia a inmunoglobulina, corticoesteroides e intolerancia a eltrombopag, no candidatos a esplenectomía / Efficacy and safety of romiplostim in pediatric patients with chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia, inadequate response or intolerance to immunoglobulin, corticosteroids and intolerance to eltrombopag, not candidates for splenectomy

ANTECEDENTES: El presente dictamen expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de romiplostim en pacientes pediátricos con trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica, respuesta inadecuada o intolerancia a inmunoglobulina, corticoesteroides y eltrombopag, no candidatos a esplenectomia. ASPECTOS GENERALES: La trombocitopenia inmunitaria (TPI), anteriormente conocida como púrpura trombocitopénica idiopática o púrpura trombocitopénica inmunitaria, es una enfermedad autoinmune caracterizada por la disminución de plaquetas (conteo de plaquetas menor de 100 x 109/L con conteo normal de células blancas y hemoglobina) (Bussel 2020). La TPI es considerada primaria cuando no existen causas o desórdenes que puedan estar asociados a la trombocitopenia, y crónica cuando tiene una duración mayor a 12 meses (Bussel 2020). En Estados Unidos, entre el 2011 y el 2016, la TPI crónica en niños menores de 18 años representó el 15.9 % de los casos de TPI (Shaw et al. 2019). En Perú no se han reportado datos epidemiológicos de la TPI en niños. La TPI es una enfermedad infrecuente cuyas estimaciones más robustas de su incidencia anual están en el rango de 1.9 a 6.4 casos por cada 100,000 niños (Terrell et al. 2010). Dada la poca frecuencia de la enfermedad, los estimados de mortalidad son escasos; pero se señala que la mortalidad en pacientes pediátricos con TPI es muy rara. La mortalidad en los pacientes recién diagnosticados se debe principalmente a las complicaciones del sangrado (e.g. hemorragia intracraneal); pero en los pacientes con TPI crónica puede ocurrir por complicaciones del tratamiento inmunosupresor de largo plazo (Bussel 2022). La incidencia de hemorragia intracraneal también es infrecuente (menor al 1 %); sin embargo, sería ligeramente mayor en los pacientes con TPI crónica (Psaila et al. 2009). TECNOLOGÍA SANITARIA DE INTERÉS: Romiplostim (NPLATE ®, AMGEN) es un TPO-RA que pertenece a la clase de agonistas miméticos (FDA 2020). Romiplostim es una proteína de fusión que media y activa las vías de transcripción intracelular a través del receptor de TPO para aumentar la producción de plaquetas (Tecnofarma 2020). Este medicamento se obtiene por tecnología de ácido desoxirribonucleico recombinante en E. coli (Tecnofarma 2020). METODOLOGÍA: La búsqueda de la literatura se realizó con el objetivo de identificar evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad de romiplostim, comparado con la mejor terapia de soporte (corticoesteroides e inmunoglobulina), en pacientes pediátricos con trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica, respuesta inadecuada o intolerancia a inmunoglobulina, corticoesteroides e intolerancia a eltrombopag, no candidatos a esplenectomía. La búsqueda de la evidencia se realizó en las bases de datos bibliográficas: PubMed, LILACS y The Cochrane Library. Adicionalmente, se amplió la búsqueda revisando la evidencia generada por grupos internacionales que realizan revisiones sistemáticas, evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias y guías de práctica clínica, tales como The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), y Comissáo nacional de incorpornáo de tecnologías no sus (CONITEC), Canadian Medical Association (CMA), American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guidelines, American Society of Hematology (ASH), y Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO). Adicionalmente, se realizó una búsqueda manual en las bases The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), el portal de la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA), y el repositorio institucional de la Dirección General de Medicamentos, Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID). Asimismo, se colectó información sobre el medicamento de interés del presente dictamen en las páginas web de la European Medicines Agency (EMA), y Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Finalmente, se realizó una búsqueda manual en el portal ClinicalTrials.govdel National Institutes of Health (NIH) para identificar ensayos clínicos en desarrollo o que aún no hayan sido publicados. RESULTADOS: Guías de práctica clínica (GPC) Publicaciones incluidas en la sección de descripción y evaluación: Neunert et al., 2021. "American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for immune thrombocytopenia" (Cindy Neunert et al. 2019). Provan et al., 2019. "Updated international consensus report on the investigation and management of primary immune thrombocytopenia" (Provan et al. 2019). Publicaciones No incluidas en la sección de descripción y evaluación: La siguiente GPC no fue incluida dentro de la evidencia del presente dictamen porque no brinda recomendaciones para la población objetivo del presente dictamen (pacientes con intolerancia a un primer TPO-RA y no candidatos a esplenectomía). Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC). "Diagnóstico y Tratamiento de Trombocitopenia Inmune Primaria" (CENETEC 2019). La siguiente GPC no fue incluida en la evidencia del presente dictamen porque los autores no realizaron una búsqueda sistemática de la evidencia para formular sus recomendaciones. Matzdorff et al., 2018. "Immune Thrombocytopenia - Current Diagnostics and Therapy: Recommendations of a Joint Working Group of DGHO, OGHO, SGH, GPOH, and DGTI" (Matzdorff et al. 2018). La siguiente GPC no fue incluida dentro de la evidencia del presente dictamen porque se encuentra disponible una versión más actualizada de la guía. Neunert et al., 2011. "The American Society of Hematology 2011 evidencebased practice guideline for immune thrombocytopenia" (Cindy Neunert et al. 2011). CONCLUSIONES: En el presente dictamen, se evaluó la mejor evidencia científica, disponible hasta la actualidad, en relación con la eficacia y seguridad de romiplostim en pacientes pediátricos con trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica, respuesta inadecuada o intolerancia a inmunoglobulina, corticoesteroides e intolerancia a eltrombopag, no candidatos a esplenectomía. La búsqueda sistemática de la evidencia culminó con la selección de una GPC (Provan et al. 2019). También, se analizó la GPC de la ASH, que fue sugerida por los especialistas de EsSalud (Cindy Neunert et al. 2019). Además, debido a que no se encontraron estudios que evaluaran el uso de romiplostim versus corticoesteroides o inmunoglobulina, se analizaron los resultados del ECA de fase III, pivotal de romiplostim (Tarantino et al. 2016). La GPC de la ASH no brinda recomendaciones para pacientes que hayan recibido previamente un TPO-RA, característica de la población de interés para el presente dictamen. El reporte de consenso de Provan et al. recomienda, basada en la experiencia/opinión de expertos, cambiar a un TPO-RA alternativo y/o considerar combinarlo con inmunosupresores, en pacientes en los que no hay respuesta a un TPO-RA o se pierde la respuesta. El ECA de Tarantino et al., pivotal de romiplostim, que compara el uso de romiplostim versus placebo, muestra que romiplostim generaría un beneficio en términos de la respuesta plaquetaria duradera y respuesta plaquetaria general. No se observaron diferencias en la incidencia de episodios de sangrado serio y EA serios, calidad de vida y el uso de medicamentos de rescate. Los especialistas de EsSalud señalan que los pacientes pediátricos con TPI y conteo de plaquetas menores de 10 x 109/L tienen un mayor riesgo de sangrado serio (i.e hemorragias intracraneales). En línea con esto, en la literatura se indica que un conteo plaquetas menor de 10 x 109/L o 20 x 109/L es un predictor de sangrado serio. En el ECA de Tarantino et al., pivotal de romiplostim, la mitad de los participantes que recibieron romiplostim tuvieron un conteo basal de plaquetas menor de 20 x 109/L; por lo que es plausible que la respuesta plaquetaria producida con el uso de romiplostim sí reduzca el riesgo de sangrado serio en aquellos pacientes cuyo conteo de plaquetas es menor de 10 x 109/L o de 20 x 109/L. Por todo lo expuesto, el 'ETS' aprueba el uso de romiplostim en pacientes pediátricos con trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica; respuesta inadecuada o intolerancia a inmunoglobulina, corticoesteroides; intolerancia a eltrombopag; no candidatos a esplenectomía, y conteo de plaquetas menor de 20 x 109/L a pesar del tratamiento, según lo establecido en el Anexo N°1. Debido a la incertidumbre sobre el balance riesgo-beneficio, no se aprueba el uso de romiplostim en los pacientes con conteo de plaquetas mayor o igual a 20 x 109/L. La vigencia del presente dictamen preliminar es de un año a partir de la fecha de publicación. Así, la continuación de dicha aprobación estará sujeta a la evaluación de los resultados obtenidos y de mayor evidencia que pueda surgir en el tiempo.

Intra-Articular Corticosteroid or Hyaluronic Acid Injections Are Not Associated with Periprosthetic Joint Infection Risk following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

This study evaluated whether the preoperative use and timing of the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and/or corticosteroid (CS) injections were associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We tested the hypothesis that preoperative injection of HA or CS within 3 months prior to primary TKA was associated with an increased risk of PJI by specifically evaluating the association between PJI risk and (1) injection type; (2) timing; (3) patient demographic factors; and (4) surgery-related factors, such as surgeon injection volume, knee arthroscopy (pre- and postoperative), and hospital length of stay. The 5% Medicare part B claims database was queried for patients who received CS and/or HA injections. Cox proportional hazards regressions evaluated the risk of PJIs after TKA, adjusting for patient and clinical factors, as well as propensity scores. The unadjusted incidence of PJI at 2-year post-TKA was 0.75% for the CS group, 0.89% for the HA group, 0.96% for both CS and HA group, and 0.75% for those who did not use HA or CS in the 12 months before TKA. For patients who used HA and/or CS within 3 months prior to TKA, the unadjusted incidence of PJI at 2-year post-TKA was 0.75% for the CS group, 1.07% for the HA group, and 1.00% for both CS and HA group, compared with 0.77% for those who did not use HA or CS. The number of injections performed per year was inconsistently associated with PJI risk. Overall, we found that intra-articular injections given within the 4-month period prior to TKA were not associated with elevated PJI risk (evaluated at 1, 3, 12, and 24 months after the index TKA) within the elderly Medicare patient population.

Assessment of Glycemic Control in Veterans With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy affects glycemic control in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). BACKGROUND: Studies have shown mixed evidence on the association between ICS use and worsening glycemic control in patients with preexisting diabetes. METHODS: Data were recorded from electronic medical records of veteran patients aged 18 to 80 with COPD and T2DM on at least 2 oral antiglycemic medications from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2017, at the Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS). The primary outcome was the rate of A1c progression >10% at 12 months and 5 years. RESULTS: This study included 127 (64 in the ICS group and 63 in the non-ICS group) patients; baseline characteristics between groups were similar with the exception of age and tobacco use. No statistically significant difference was found between groups with regard to the primary outcome. More patients in the non-ICS group had antiglycemic medications initiated at 12 months (P = .009) and 5 years (P = .003) compared to the ICS group. CONCLUSION: Inhaled corticosteroids did not negatively impact glycemic control among veterans with comorbid COPD and T2DM.

Sulfasalazine-induced drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome in a seronegative spondyloarthritis patient: A Case report.

The objectives were to evaluate drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome due to sulfasalazine and to carry out the pharmacoeconomic assessment associated with this adverse drug reaction (ADR). A 37-year woman was presented with rashes, fever, cough, and dyspnea. In the past 3 months, she was on sulfasalazine for inflammatory polyarthritis and seronegative spondyloarthritis. The diagnosis was based on raised eosinophils count, breathing difficulty, and typical pattern of rashes. Significant improvement was seen after discontinuation of sulfasalazine and with the initiation of parenteral corticosteroids. The casualty of this ADR was "probable" based on RegiSCAR, WHO, and Naranjo casualty assessment scales. Preventability, severity was assessed and total cost for management of the ADR was found to be ' 12,126. Thus, ADRs not only adds to patient sufferings but also increase the economic burden. Health-care providers need to be made aware of potentially fatal ADRs associated with sulfa drugs and should be keen to report such ADRs to drug safety authorities.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.