ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In contrast to randomized clinical trials, comparative safety and effectiveness assessments of osteoporosis medications in clinical practice may be subject to confounding by indication. We used negative control outcomes to detect residual confounding when comparing osteoporosis medications. METHODS: Using MarketScan Commercial and Supplemental claims, we identified women aged ≥55 years who initiated an oral bisphosphonate (BP) (risedronate, alendronate, or ibandronate), denosumab (an injected biologic), or intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015. Women with Paget's disease or cancer were excluded. We compared individual oral BPs to each other, denosumab to ZA, denosumab to oral BPs, and ZA to oral BPs, with respect to 11 negative control outcomes identified by subject matter experts. We estimated the 12-month cumulative risk difference (RD) using inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights. RESULTS: Among 148 587 women, most initiated alendronate (57%), followed by ibandronate (12%), ZA (11%), risedronate (10%), and denosumab (10%). Compared with denosumab, patients initiating ZA had similar risks of all negative control outcomes. Compared with oral BPs, patients initiating denosumab had a higher risk of a wellness visit (RD = 1.2%, 95% CI: 0.4, 1.9) and a lower risk of receiving herpes zoster vaccine (RD = -0.6%, 95% CI: -1.1, -0.2). Comparing ZA with oral BP initiators resulted in two outcomes with positive associations. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is warranted when comparing injectable vs oral osteoporosis medications, given the potential for unmeasured confounding. Evaluating negative control outcomes could be a standard validity check prior to conducting comparative studies.
Subject(s)
Bone Density Conservation Agents/adverse effects , Denosumab/adverse effects , Diphosphonates/adverse effects , Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal/drug therapy , Zoledronic Acid/adverse effects , Administration, Oral , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bone Density Conservation Agents/administration & dosage , Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic , Denosumab/administration & dosage , Diphosphonates/administration & dosage , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Injections, Subcutaneous , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity , United States/epidemiology , Zoledronic Acid/administration & dosageABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) have low platelet counts and an increased risk of bleeding. We described treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in routine practice in the United States (US). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using electronic health record data from hematology/oncology clinics linked to administrative claims in the US, we studied 447 adults newly diagnosed with primary ITP from 2011 to 2016. Patients with a secondary cause of thrombocytopenia were excluded. The incidence of ITP treatment initiation, bleeding events, and rescue therapy use were estimated using competing risk models. RESULTS: At 1-year post-ITP diagnosis, 50% of patients were prescribed an oral corticosteroid, with the majority being prescribed immediately following diagnosis. Of the more common second-line options, rituximab use was the most frequent (1-year cumulative incidence: 16% [95% confidence interval: 12, 19]), followed by romiplostim (9% [7, 12] and eltrombopag (5% [3, 8]). Use of these drugs was similar at 2 years post-diagnosis. At 6 months post-ITP treatment initiation, the cumulative incidence of bleeding was similar among eltrombopag and romiplostim initiators (17% [6, 33] and 19% [9, 31], respectively) and was slightly lower in rituximab users (12% [6, 20]). However, during this same timeframe, rituximab users had a higher incidence of rescue therapy use (48% [36, 58] versus 29% [14, 46] in eltrombopag and 26% [14, 39] in romiplostim users). Although splenectomy was rare, at 6 months post-surgery nearly 20% had experienced a bleed and nearly 20% had required rescue. CONCLUSION: This study describes the health trajectory of adults with ITP who are managed in hematology clinics in the US and could inform the design of non-interventional studies of comparative effectiveness among treatments.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines removed the recommendation to treat adults at risk of cardiovascular disease to goal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We anticipated that the frequency of LDL-C testing in clinical practice would decline as a result. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated the frequency of LDL-C testing before and after the guideline release. METHODS: We used the MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims data (1/1/2007-12/31/2016) to identify four cohorts: 1) statin initiators (any intensity), 2) high-intensity statin initiators, 3) ezetimibe initiators, and 4) patients at very high cardiovascular risk (≥2 hospitalizations for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke, with prevalent statin use). Rates of LDL-C testing by calendar year quarter were estimated for each cohort. To estimate rates in the absence of a guideline change, we fit a time-series model to the pre-guideline rates and extrapolated to the post-guideline period, adjusting for covariates, seasonality, and time trend. RESULTS: Pre- and post-guideline rates (LDL-C tests per 1,000 persons per quarter) were 248 and 235, respectively, for 3.9 million statin initiators; 263 and 246 for 1.3 million high-intensity statin initiators; 277 and 261 for 323,544 ezetimibe initiators; and 180 and 158 for 42,108 very high-risk patients. For all cohorts, observed post-guideline rates were similar to model-predicted rates. On average, the difference between observed and predicted rates was 8.5 for patients initiating any statin; 2.6 for patients initiating a high-intensity statin; 11.4 for patients initiating ezetimibe, and -0.5 for high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: We observed no discernible impact of the release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines on LDL-C testing rates. Rather, there was a gradual decline in testing rates starting prior to the guideline change and continuing throughout the study period. Our findings suggest that the guidelines had little to no impact on use of LDL-C testing.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prior to 2018, intravenous bisphosphonates (IV BPs) were the only therapies recommended to prevent skeletal-related events for patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM). We examined patterns of IV BP initiation and interruption among patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) in the United States. METHODS: Electronic health records linked to administrative health insurance claims were used to identify adults with NDMM between 1 January 2011 and 30 April 2016. Patients were excluded for recent IV BP use or concurrent cancer. The incidences of IV BP initiation and interruption were estimated using competing risk regression. A generalized linear model was used to estimate risk factors for treatment initiation and interruption. RESULTS: Among the 547 patients with NDMM, 64% initiated MM therapy within 30 days of diagnosis. By one year, 65% (95% CI: 59, 70) of patients with appropriately timed anti-MM therapy had initiated an IV BP. Zoledronic acid was the most commonly initiated IV BP. Patients with Stage III MM were more likely to initiate an IV BP (adjusted risk difference (RD): 6.3; 95% CI: 2.7, 10.1), while those with eGFR <30 mL/min were less likely to initiate (RD: -9.7; 95% CI: -13.8, -5.8). Of the 264 patients who initiated an IV BP, 77% (95% CI: 71, 82) experienced an interruption within one year. Patients on concurrent anti-MM therapy were less likely to experience an interruption in IV BP therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with NDMM do not initiate IV BPs, particularly those with renal complications. Interruptions of IV BPs were common.
Subject(s)
Bone Density Conservation Agents/administration & dosage , Diphosphonates/administration & dosage , Multiple Myeloma/drug therapy , Administration, Intravenous , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) are recommended for women with bone metastasis from breast cancer to prevent skeletal-related events. We examined the usage patterns and identified the factors associated with the use of BMAs (denosumab and intravenous bisphosphonates) among women in the US. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic health records from oncology clinics were used to identify women diagnosed with bone metastasis from breast cancer between 2013 and 2014. Patients were excluded if they had recently used a BMA or had concurrent cancer at an additional primary site. The incidence of BMA initiation, interruption, and reinitiation were estimated using competing risk regression models. A generalized linear model was used to estimate risk factors for treatment initiation and interruption. RESULTS: There were 589 women diagnosed with bone metastasis from breast cancer. By 1 year, 68% of these patients (95% CI: 64%, 71%) had initiated treatment with a BMA. Denosumab and zoledronic acid were the most commonly used agents, whereas pamidronate was used infrequently. Young women were more likely to initiate a BMA than older women (adjusted risk difference: 6.4 [95% CI: 1.5, 10.9]). Of the 412 patients who initiated a BMA, 46% (95% CI: 41%, 51%) experienced an interruption within 1 year. Seventy-four percent (95% CI: 68%, 79%) of patients who interrupted their treatment had reinitiated therapy within 1 year of interruption. CONCLUSION: The majority of women diagnosed with bone metastasis from breast cancer initiate a BMA within 1 year of diagnosis, but a large proportion, particularly among the elderly, do not use these therapies.