Interventional Pharmacoepidemiology: Design and evaluation of interventions to improve prescribing.

Despite the value of modern therapeutics, many obstacles prevent their optimal use. Overuse, underuse and misuse are common, resulting in morbidity and mortality impacting billions of individuals across the world. Pharmacoepidemiology provides important insights into drug utilization, safety and effectiveness in large populations, and it is an important method to identify opportunities to improve the value of therapeutics in clinical practice. However, for these opportunities to be realized, interventions to improve prescribing must be developed, evaluated and implemented in the real world. We provide an overview of this process, focusing especially on how such interventions can be designed and deployed to maximize scalability, adoption and impact. Prescribing represents a complex behavior with barriers and enablers, and interventions to improve prescribing will be most successful when developed, piloted and refined to maximize provider and patient acceptability. Carefully developed evaluations of interventions are also critical, and varied methods are available to empirically evaluate the intended and potential unintended consequences of interventions. With illustrative examples from the peer-reviewed literature, we provide readers with an overview of approaches to the essential and growing field of interventional pharmacoepidemiology.

Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Comparative efficacy of tezepelumab to mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma. OBJECTIVES: We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV1 compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV1 by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV1 by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.

Comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in asthma: A target trial emulation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We emulated a hypothetical randomized trial using electronic health records from a large US-based academic health care system. Participants aged 18 years or older with baseline IgE levels between 30 and 700 IU/mL and peripheral eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL were eligible for study inclusion. The study period extended from March 2016 to August 2021. Outcomes included the incidence of asthma-related exacerbations and change in baseline FEV1 value over 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 68 individuals receiving dupilumab, 68 receiving omalizumab, and 65 receiving mepolizumab met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 exacerbations occurred over 68 person years (0.46 exacerbations per person year) in the dupilumab group, 63 over 68 person years (0.93 per person year) in the omalizumab group, and 86 over 65 person years (1.32 per person year) in the mepolizumab group (adjusted incidence rate ratios: dupilumab vs mepolizumab, 0.28 [95% CI = 0.09-0.84]; dupilumab vs omalizumab, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.12-1.09]; and omalizumab vs mepolizumab, 0.78 [95% CI = 0.32-1.91]). The differences in the change in FEV1 comparing patients who received the different biologics were as follows: 0.11 L (95% CI = -0.003 to 0.222 L) for dupilumab versus mepolizumab, 0.082 L (95% CI -0.040 to 0.204 L) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, and 0.026 L (95% CI -0.083 to 0.140 L) for omalizumab versus mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with asthma and eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL and IgE levels of 30 to 700 kU/L, dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in exacerbation and FEV1 value than omalizumab and mepolizumab.

Discontinuation of Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: A Multilevel Framework.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has been associated with large increases in opioid-related mortality, yet it is unclear whether specific subpopulations were especially likely to discontinue buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder as the pandemic ensued. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess predictors of buprenorphine discontinuation in the early months of the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic (April-July 2020) compared with a prepandemic period (April-July 2019). DESIGN: In each time period, we estimated a multilevel regression models to assess risk of discontinuation in April-July for people who started buprenorphine in January-February. Models included person-level, prescriber-level, and area-level covariates. SUBJECTS: Individuals age 18 years or older in the all-payer IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Claims. MEASURES: The primary outcome was buprenorphine discontinuation (ie, no filled prescriptions during the follow-up periods). RESULTS: Overall, 13.98% of patients discontinued buprenorphine in April-July 2020, less than the 15.71% in 2019 (P<0.001). In 2020, patient-level factors associated with discontinuation included younger age, male sex, shorter baseline possession ratio, and payment by cash. Compared with patients with a primary care physician prescriber, specialties most associated with discontinuation were pain medicine and physician assistant/nurse practitioner. Compared with the South Atlantic region, discontinuation risk was lowest in New England and highest in the West South Central States. The association between patient, prescriber, and geographic variables to risk of discontinuation was very similar in 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical and policy interventions may have mitigated opioid use disorder treatment discontinuation following the pandemic, such discontinuation is nevertheless common and varies by identifiable patient, provider and geographic factors.

Single and combined use of fall-risk-increasing drugs and fracture risk: a population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: while many drug groups are associated with falls in older people, less is known about absolute increases in risk and how these risks vary across different groups of drugs or individuals. METHOD AND DESIGN: we conducted a population based nested case-control study among people aged ≥65 years in the Scottish regions of Tayside and Fife. Cases were individuals hospitalised with a fracture between 2010 and 2020, to whom we matched up to 10 controls. We examined relative and absolute risks of drug groups known as 'Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs' (FRIDs), alone and in combination, and among younger and older (≥75 years) adults. Adjusting for previous hospitalisations, drug use and laboratory data, we used conditional logistic regression to quantify associations between drug exposures and outcomes. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: the cohort comprised 246,535 people aged ≥65 years, of whom 18,456 suffered an incident fracture. Fracture risks were significantly increased for most FRIDs examined. Absolute risks were much larger among older vs younger people and both relative and absolute risks increased with the number of FRIDs combined. Overall, the highest absolute increase in risk were found in people aged ≥75 years for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (number needed to harm 53), tricyclic antidepressants (NNH 81), antipsychotics (NNH 75) and use of three or more FRIDs (NNH ≤66). CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥75 years prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics or taking three or more drugs that increase risk of falls may benefit most from deprescribing interventions.

Development and Validation of the Summary Elixhauser Comorbidity Score for Use With ICD-10-CM-Coded Data Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have many comorbidities contributing to mortality. OBJECTIVE: To develop a summary Elixhauser (S-Elixhauser) comorbidity score to predict 30-day, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality in older adults using the 38 comorbidities operationalized by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries from 2017 to 2019. PATIENTS: Persons hospitalized in 2018 (n = 899 844) and 3 disease-specific hospitalized cohorts. MEASUREMENTS: Weights were derived for 38 comorbidities to predict 30-day, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality. The S-Elixhauser score was internally validated and calibrated. Individual Elixhauser comorbidity indicators (38 comorbidities), the modified application of the AHRQ-derived Elixhauser summary score, the Charlson comorbidity indicators (17 comorbidities), and the Charlson summary score were externally validated. The c-statistic was used to evaluate discrimination of a comorbidity score model. RESULTS: The S-Elixhauser score was well calibrated and internally validated, with a c-statistic of 0.705 (95% CI, 0.703 to 0.707) in predicting 30-day mortality, 0.654 (CI, 0.651 to 0.657) for in-hospital mortality, and 0.743 (CI, 0.741 to 0.744) for 1-year mortality. In external validation of other comorbidity indices for 30-day mortality, the c-statistic was 0.711 (CI, 0.709 to 0.713) for the individual Elixhauser comorbidity indicators, 0.688 (CI, 0.686 to 0.690) for the AHRQ Elixhauser score, 0.696 (CI, 0.694 to 0.698) for the Charlson comorbidity indicators, and 0.690 (CI, 0.688 to 0.693) for the Charlson summary score. In 3 disease-specific populations, the discrimination of the S-Elixhauser score in predicting 30-day mortality ranged from 0.657 to 0.732. LIMITATION: Validation of the S-Elixhauser comorbidity score and head-to-head comparison with other comorbidity scores in an external population are needed to evaluate comparative performance. CONCLUSION: The S-Elixhauser comorbidity score is well calibrated and internally validated but its advantage over the AHRQ Elixhauser and Charlson summary scores is unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/µL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4). CONCLUSION: There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.

Importance: Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising. Objective: To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics. Exposures: Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug. Results: The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales. Conclusions and Relevance: Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Predictors of new persistent opioid use after benign hysterectomy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial reductions in the past decade, prescription opioids continue to cause widespread morbidity and mortality in the United States. Little is known regarding patterns and predictors of opioid use among women undergoing benign hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the incidence and predictors of new persistent opioid use after benign hysterectomy among opioid-naïve women from a set of demographic, operative, and opioid prescription characteristics of patients. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified women undergoing benign hysterectomy from 2011 to 2016 using a validated national insurance claims database (IBM MarketScan Commercial Database). After excluding women with prevalent opioid use (from 365 to 31 days preoperatively), we identified patients who received a perioperative opioid prescription (30 days before to 14 days after hysterectomy) and evaluated them for new persistent opioid use, defined as at least 1 prescription from 15 to 90 days and at least 1 prescription from 91 to 365 days postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine demographic, clinical, operative, and opioid prescription-related factors associated with new persistent use. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, and Clinical Classification Software codes were used to identify hysterectomies, preoperative pain and psychiatric diagnoses, surgical indications, and surgical complications included as covariates. RESULTS: We identified 114,260 women who underwent benign hysterectomy and were not prevalent opioid users, of which 93,906 (82.2%) received at least 1 perioperative opioid prescription. Of 93,906 women, 4334 (4.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Logistic regression demonstrated that new persistent use odds is significantly increased by younger age (18-34 years; adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.30), southern geographic location (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.79-2.27), preoperative psychiatric and pain disorders (anxiety: adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.33]; arthritis: adjusted odds ratio, 1.30 [95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.40]), >1 perioperative prescription (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.88), mood disorder medication use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64), tobacco smoking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.89), and surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.00). Although statistically nonsignificant, total morphine milligram equivalent of ≥300 in the first perioperative prescription increased persistent use likelihood by 9% (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.17). Dispensing of a first perioperative prescription before the surgery, as opposed to after, increased new persistent use odds by 61% (95% confidence interval, 1.50-1.72). Each additional perioperative day covered by a prescription increased the likelihood of persistent use by 2% (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.03). In contrast, minimally invasive hysterectomy (laparoscopic: adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.88]; vaginal: adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.93]) and a more recent surgery year (2016 vs reference 2011: adjusted odds ratio 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.65) significantly decreased its likelihood. CONCLUSION: New persistent opioid use after hysterectomy was associated with several patient, operative, and opioid prescription-related factors. Considering these factors may be beneficial in counseling patients and shared decision-making about perioperative prescription to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use.

Health care utilization and costs of systemic lupus erythematosus in the United States: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate health care utilization and costs for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by disease severity. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase from January 2000 to June 2020 for observational studies examining health care utilization and costs associated with SLE among adults in the United States. Two independent reviewers reviewed the selected full-text articles to determine the final set of included studies. Costs were converted to 2020 US $. RESULTS: We screened 9224 articles, of which 51 were included. Mean emergency department visits were 0.3-3.5 per year, and mean hospitalizations were 0.1-2.4 per year (mean length of stay 0.4-13.0 days). Patients averaged 10-26 physician visits/year. Mean annual direct total costs were $17,258-$63,022 per patient and were greater for patients with moderate or severe disease ($19,099-$82,391) compared with mild disease ($12,242-$29,233). Mean annual direct costs were larger from commercial claims ($24,585-$63,022) than public payers (Medicare and Medicaid: $18,302-$27,142). CONCLUSIONS: SLE remains a significant driver of health care utilization and costs. Patients with moderate to severe SLE use more health care services and incur greater direct and indirect costs than those with mild disease.

Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the US healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. METHODS: We built a partitioned survival model based on a network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials with 7287 patients aged 36 to 94 years between 2004 and 2018 to predict patient health trajectories by treatment. We tested parameter uncertainties with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule and adopted generic drug prices when available. We measured cost-effectiveness by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean costs were approximately $392 000 with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and approximately $415 000, $464 000, $597 000, and $959 000 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 3.38 with ADT alone and 3.92, 4.76, 3.92, and 5.01 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. As add-on therapy to ADT, docetaxel had an ICER of $42 069 per QALY over ADT alone; abiraterone acetate had an ICER of $58 814 per QALY over docetaxel; apalutamide had an ICER of $1 979 676 per QALY over abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide was dominated. At a willingness to pay below $50 000 per QALY, docetaxel plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment; at any willingness to pay between $50 000 and $200 000 per QALY, abiraterone acetate plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the value of abiraterone acetate plus ADT given its relative cost-effectiveness to other systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Use of prescription medications with cardiovascular adverse effects among older adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Many commonly used prescription medications have cardiovascular adverse effects, yet the cumulative risk of cardiovascular events associated with the concurrent use of these medications is unknown. We examined the association between the concurrent use of prescription medications with known risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) ("MACE medications") and the risk of such events among older adults. METHODS: A multi-center, population-based study from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of a cohort of 3669 community-dwelling adults aged 61-86 years with no history of cardiovascular disease who reported the use of at least one medication between September 2006 and August 2013 were followed up until August 2015. Exposure defined as time-varying and time-fixed use of 1, 2 or ≥3 MACE medications with non-MACE medications serving as negative control. Primary outcome was incident MACE defined as coronary artery revascularization, myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, there was an increased risk of MACE associated with use of 1, 2, or ≥3 MACE medications (1 MACE: hazards ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.57); 2 MACE: HR 1.89, CI 1.42-2.53; ≥3 MACE: HR 2.22, CI 1.61-3.07) compared to use of non-MACE medications. These associations persisted in propensity score-matched analyses and among new users of MACE medications, never users of cardiovascular medications and subgroups of participants with increased risk of MACE. There was no association between the number of non-MACE medications used and MACE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this community-based cohort of older adults with no prior cardiovascular disease, the use of MACE medications was independently and consistently associated with an increased risk of such events in a dose-response fashion.

Use of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and Dexamethasone Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the United States : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To use the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large, multicenter, longitudinal cohort, to characterize the use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone, overall as well as across individuals, health systems, and time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 43 health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 137 870 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 137 870 persons hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, 8754 (6.3%) received hydroxychloroquine, 29 272 (21.2%) remdesivir, and 53 909 (39.1%) dexamethasone during the study period. Since the release of results from the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial in mid-June, approximately 78% to 84% of people who have had invasive mechanical ventilation have received dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased during March 2020, peaking at 42%, and started declining by April 2020. By contrast, remdesivir and dexamethasone use gradually increased over the study period. Dexamethasone and remdesivir use varied substantially across health centers (intraclass correlation coefficient, 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir). LIMITATION: Because most N3C data contributors are academic medical centers, findings may not reflect the experience of community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone, an evidence-based treatment of COVID-19, may be underused among persons who are mechanically ventilated. The use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varied across health systems, suggesting variation in patient case mix, drug access, treatment protocols, and quality of care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institute on Aging.

Association Between Chronic Use of Immunosuppresive Drugs and Clinical Outcomes From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalization: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Large US Health System.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs worsens or improves the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with plausible mechanisms for both. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in 2121 consecutive adults with acute inpatient hospital admission between 4 March and 29 August 2020 with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in a large academic health system, with adjustment for confounding with propensity score-derived stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Chronic immunosuppression was defined as prescriptions for immunosuppressive drugs current at the time of admission. Outcomes included mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: There were 2121 patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed (1967, 93%) or suspected (154, 7%) COVID-19 during the study period, with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 40-67). Of these, 108 (5%) were classified as immunosuppressed before COVID-19, primarily with prednisone (>7.5 mg/day), tacrolimus, or mycophenolate mofetil. Among the entire cohort, 311 (15%) received mechanical ventilation; the median (interquartile range) length of stay was 5.2 (2.5-10.6) days, and 1927 (91%) survived to discharge. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in the risk of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], .79; 95% confidence interval [CI], .46-1.35), in-hospital mortality (HR, .66; 95% CI, .28-1.55), or length of stay (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, .92-1.47) among individuals with immunosuppression and counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs was neither associated with worse nor better clinical outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in one US health system.

Quality of Buprenorphine Care for Insured Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

AIM: The aim of this study was to characterize quality of buprenorphine care for opioid use disorder (OUD) by quantifying buprenorphine initiation, engagement, and maintenance for individuals in a large, diverse, real-world cohort in the United States. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: OUD treatment in the outpatient setting. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 45,210 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees 18 years or older in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse with an index diagnosis of OUD between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with buprenorphine. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated 6 measures of buprenorphine treatment quality. We conducted survival analyses to characterize treatment duration and logistic regressions to evaluate the association between clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and quality. FINDINGS: Of 45,210 eligible individuals with OUD, ∼1 in 10 (n=4600, 10.2%) initiated buprenorphine within 365 days following diagnosis (Measure #1) and 2850 individuals (6.3%) initiated buprenorphine within 14 days of diagnosis (Measure #2). Of individuals initiating treatment within 14 days of diagnosis, 1769 (62.1%) had 2 or more buprenorphine claims within 34 days of initiation (Measure #3). Of the 4600 individuals who received buprenorphine, 2300 (50.0%) were maintained in care with 180 days or more of covered buprenorphine treatment during 365 days after diagnosis (Measure #4). Finally, of the 4600 individuals who received buprenorphine, 2543 (55.3%) did not fill any other concurrent opioid analgesic (Measure #5) and 2951 (64.2%) did not fill any concurrent benzodiazepine (Measure #6). Quality was generally lower for individuals with MA compared with commercial coverage and among Hispanic and Black adults compared with White adults. CONCLUSION: Widespread gaps exist in quality of buprenorphine treatment initiation, engagement, and maintenance among commercially insured and MA enrollees with OUD.

Ambulatory noninsulin treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States, 2015 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the noninsulin drug treatment of type 2 diabetes, including first- and second-line therapies on top of metformin, from 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of cross-sectional data using the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of ambulatory physician practices in the United States. We focused on the use of noninsulin pharmacological treatments for type 2 diabetes among individuals aged 35 years and older between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. The main outcome was type 2 diabetes visits where a prescription drug was used ("treatment visit"). RESULTS: Ambulatory diabetes visits decreased from 30.1 million treatment visits in 2015 to 29.5 million treatment visits in 2019. Among treatment visits where a single drug was prescribed, the use of metformin declined from 57.0% of monotherapy in 2015 to 46.0% of monotherapy in 2019, while during the same period the share of monotherapy accounted for by glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists increased from 4.3% to 8.5% and the share accounted for by sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors increased from 7.3% to 19.5%. Among treatment visits where metformin plus another drug was prescribed, the share of second-line therapy accounted for by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors decreased from 21.9% of treatment visits in 2015 to 20.8% of treatment visits in 2019; sulphonylurea use declined from 45.2% to 32.7%, use of SGLT2 inhibitors increased from 14.5% to 21.2% and use of GLP-1 receptor agonists increased from 9.8% to 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes in the landscape of ambulatory care for diabetes have taken place during the past 6 years, including moderate declines in metformin monotherapy, moderate declines in second-line sulphonylurea use, and large increases in SGLT2 use. These changes underscore the dynamic nature of drug utilization for diabetes in the United States, and reflect the effects of emerging evidence, evolving clinical guidelines and evolving regulatory and payment policies.

High-dose opioid utilization and mortality among individuals initiating hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals undergoing hemodialysis in the United States frequently report pain and receive three-fold more opioid prescriptions than the general population. While opioid use is appropriate for select patients, high-dose utilization may contribute to an increased risk of death due to possible accumulation of opioid metabolites. METHODS: We studied high-dose opioid utilization (≥120 morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day) among adults initiating hemodialysis in the United States between 2007 and 2014 using national registry data. We calculated the cumulative incidence (%) of high-dose utilization and depicted trends in the average percentage of days individuals were exposed to opioids. We used adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify which opioid doses were associated with mortality. RESULTS: Among 327,344 adults undergoing hemodialysis, the cumulative incidence of high-dose utilization was 14.9% at 2 years after initiating hemodialysis. Among patients with ≥1 opioid prescription during follow-up, the average percentage of days exposed to high-dose utilization increased from 13.9% in 2007 to 26.1% in 2014. Compared to 0MME per day, doses < 60MME were not associated with an increased risk of mortality, but high-dose utilization was associated with a 1.63-fold (95% CI, 1.57, 1.69) increased risk of mortality. The risk of mortality associated with opioid dose was highest in the first year after hemodialysis initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of mortality associated with opioid utilization among individuals on hemodialysis increases as doses exceed 60MME per day and is greatest during periods of high-dose utilization. Patients and clinicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of opioid doses exceeding 60MME per day.

Key Evidence Supporting Prescription Opioids Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1997 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the evidence required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for new approvals of opioid analgesics. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in new drug applications (NDAs) for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with pain who participated in phase 3 pivotal trials. INTERVENTION: FDA-approved opioid analgesics. MEASUREMENTS: Key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials; trial control groups; the use of enriched trial populations; and systematically measured safety outcomes. RESULTS: Most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (n = 25 [52.1%]) or new formulations (n = 9 [18.8%]); only 1 (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity. Of 39 NDAs approved for treating chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least 1 pivotal trial; these trials (n = 28) had a median duration of 84 days (interquartile range [IQR], 25 to 84 days) and enrolled a median of 299 patients (IQR, 174 to 525 patients). Seventeen (81%) of these products were approved on the basis of designs that excluded patients who could not tolerate the drugs, had early adverse effects, or reported few immediate benefits. Among NDAs for chronic pain, 8 (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion, 7 (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed development of tolerance. Eight of 9 products for acute pain were supported by at least 1 pivotal trial; the pivotal trials (n = 19) had a median duration of 1 day (IQR, 1 to 2 days) and enrolled a median of 329 patients (IQR, 199 to 456 patients). Although all but 1 of the 48 approved NDAs were for previously approved moieties, analysis of available NDAs for referent products yielded similar findings. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was limited to approved opioids. Animal studies and nonpivotal trials were excluded. Evidence for safety in NDAs was presented for chronic pain only. CONCLUSION: Between 1997 and 2018, the FDA approved opioids on the basis of pivotal trials of short or intermediate duration, often in narrowly defined pain populations of patients who could tolerate the drug. Systematic collation of certain important safety outcomes was rare. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.