Is there overuse of proton pump inhibitors in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas? A cohort study based on the French health insurance database in the Midi-Pyrénées region.

Patients suffering from B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) have an increased likelihood of being exposed to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), related to several factors which have been reported in the literature. PPIs are among the drugs most likely to be prescribed inappropriately. Consequently, B-NHL patients could be particularly at risk of inappropriate PPI prescription, with potential adverse drug reactions. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of PPIs use and to identify factors associated with PPIs initiation during the active treatment phase of B-NHL. We conducted a new-user cohort study using regional data from the French national health insurance database in the Midi-Pyrénées region (southwestern France). Incident B-NHL patients were selected according to an algorithm of selection, validated with data from a cancer registry. Our study revealed that 48.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.2-52.6) of patients initiated PPIs during chemotherapy after B-NHL diagnosis. According to information available in the SNDS, recommended indications for PPI prescriptions were identified in 21.1% of cases. Median duration of treatment was 65.3 days (CI: 35-112). Determinants of PPIs initiation were peptic ulcer disease, gastroprotection (appropriate or not) for medications considered at risk (NSAIDs, glucocorticoids and anticoagulants), age, nonfollicular lymphoma, polypharmacy, gastroenterologists' consultations and being hospitalized in a university hospital. Around 50% of patients initiated PPI treatment during the chemotherapy phase with only one-fifth identified as appropriate prescriptions and with long durations of treatment in most cases. Given this background, appropriate PPI prescription should be promoted in B-NHL to avoid potential inappropriate chronic use and related adverse events.

Infectious risk of biological drugs vs. traditional systemic treatments in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a cohort analysis in the French insurance database.

The aim of this study was to compare the infectious risk between a group of psoriasis patients treated by biological drugs (BD) and a group treated by traditional systemic treatments (TST). We built a retrospective observational cohort study from the French health insurance database in the Midi-Pyrénées area (2.9 million inhabitants, southwest of France) using data from 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2013. We compared the infectious risk between 'exposed' patients treated with BD (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, or ustekinumab) and 'unexposed' patients treated by TST (phototherapy, acitretin, methotrexate, or cyclosporine). We realized a survival analysis on the first infectious event, defined as an anti-infective drug delivery or a hospital diagnosis of infection. We selected 101 'exposed' and 788 'unexposed' patients. In our multivariate Cox model, 'exposure' did not seem to decrease the time frame of the first infectious event compared with 'nonexposure' (HR = 0.94, P = 0.62). Among all treatment, the safest seemed to be ustekinumab while the least safe was etanercept. We found factors statistically associated with the risk of infection: gender (female vs. male), economic deprivation, chronic hepatitis B or C, history of cancer, at least one infectious event, and the number of different drugs during the 6-month period before the study. We did not find any difference of infective risk between the BD and the TST. This result enhances the recent PSONET registries conclusions.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and hypertension treatment intensification: a population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to antagonize the effects of antihypertensive drugs, and these associations can lead to an increase in arterial blood pressure. However, the impact of NSAIDs on hypertension treatment management in large-scale populations remains poorly evaluated. We examined whether the introduction of NSAID into the treatment regimen would induce an intensification of hypertension treatment (defined as the introduction of a new antihypertensive drug). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study involving 5,710 hypertensive subjects included in the French health insurance system database who had been treated and stabilized with their antihypertensive therapy and not exposed to any NSAID between 1 April 2005 and 1 April 2006. The maximum follow-up duration was 4 years. RESULTS: Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for hypertension treatment intensification were 1.34 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.71] for NSAIDs in general, 1.79 (95 % CI 1.15-2.78) for diclofenac and 2.02 (95 % CI:1.09-3.77) for piroxicam. There were significant interactions between NSAIDs and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs; HR 4.09, 95 % CI 2.02-8.27) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs; HR 3.62, 95 % CI 1.80-7.31), but not with other antihypertensive drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to NSAIDs leads to an intensification of hypertension treatment, especially in patients treated with ACEIs or ARBs. Renin-angiotensin system blockers should be avoided whenever NSAIDs are prescribed.

[Outpatient use of heparin: data from the Midi-Pyrenes Health Fund]. / Utilisation des héparines en médecine de ville: données de l'Assurance Maladie de Midi-Pyrénées.

The risk of haemorrhagic complications associated with heparin therapy can be reduced by good clinical practice. The aim of this study was to describe outpatient heparin therapy by using the database of the National Health Fund. The study population consisted of affiliates of the salaried employees insured by the health fund branch of the Midi-Pyrénées region, and corresponded to 62% of the residents of that region. Analysis of treatments and biological monitoring was carried out on a 1-year period. During this period, 16,462 patients started a treatment with heparin, 92% for a single treatment. The mean age of the patients was 55 years (SD = 19.8) and the majority were women (53%). Nine percent of these patients were switched to oral anticoagulant therapy. Of the other patients, 52% received heparin for less than 10 days, 36% for between 10 days and 5 weeks, and 12% for more than 5 weeks; 33% of the last group where heparin was prescribed for more than 5 weeks corresponds to a prescription of more than 3 months. Seventy-three percent of the heparin treatment durations complied with the authorities' (l'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé [AFSSAPS]) recommendations. Biological monitoring comprised a platelet count, an APTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) or an anti-Xa check in 41.9%, 27.8% and 3.1% of treated patients, respectively. Creatininaemia was measured in 27% of patients aged > 75 years (a group at increased risk of adverse drug reactions). Even considering some of the differences noted between the medical prescriptions and the reimbursement data of the health fund, results from this study allowed an evaluation of medical practices and suggests that monitoring of patients receiving heparin treatments remains insufficient, thus decreasing the benefit/risk ratio of such therapies.