Mortality among World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers, 2002-2011.

BACKGROUND: Rescue and recovery workers responding to the 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) sustained exposures to toxic chemicals and have elevated rates of multiple morbidities. METHODS: Using data from the World Trade Center Health Program and the National Death Index for 2002-2011, we examined standardized mortality ratios (SMR) and proportional cancer mortality ratios (PCMR) with indirect standardization for age, sex, race, and calendar year to the U.S. general population, as well as associations between WTC-related environmental exposures and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We identified 330 deaths among 28,918 responders (SMR 0.43, 95%CI 0.39-0.48). No cause-specific SMRs were meaningfully elevated. PCMRs were elevated for neoplasms of lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue (PCMR 1.76, 95%CI 1.06-2.75). Mortality hazard ratios showed no linear trend with exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with a healthy worker effect, all-cause mortality among responders was not elevated. There was no clear association between intensity and duration of exposure and mortality. Surveillance is needed to monitor the proportionally higher cancer mortality attributed to lymphatic/hematopoietic neoplasms.

Benefit-risk analysis : a brief review and proposed quantitative approaches.

Given the current status of benefit-risk analysis as a largely qualitative method, two techniques for a quantitative synthesis of a drug's benefit and risk are proposed to allow a more objective approach. The recommended methods, relative-value adjusted number-needed-to-treat (RV-NNT) and its extension, minimum clinical efficacy (MCE) analysis, rely upon efficacy or effectiveness data, adverse event data and utility data from patients, describing their preferences for an outcome given potential risks. These methods, using hypothetical data for rheumatoid arthritis drugs, demonstrate that quantitative distinctions can be made between drugs which would better inform clinicians, drug regulators and patients about a drug's benefit-risk profile. If the number of patients needed to treat is less than the relative-value adjusted number-needed-to-harm in an RV-NNT analysis, patients are willing to undergo treatment with the experimental drug to derive a certain benefit knowing that they may be at risk for any of a series of potential adverse events. Similarly, the results of an MCE analysis allow for determining the worth of a new treatment relative to an older one, given not only the potential risks of adverse events and benefits that may be gained, but also by taking into account the risk of disease without any treatment. Quantitative methods of benefit-risk analysis have a place in the evaluative armamentarium of pharmacovigilance, especially those that incorporate patients' perspectives.

Benefit-risk analysis: a proposal using quantitative methods.

This is the first part of a two-article series which will introduce the theory and practice of a proposed set of quantitative methods for benefit-risk analysis. Adjustments to number-needed-to-treat (NNT) analysis and a new method, minimum clinical efficacy (MCE) analysis are presented and critically discussed. The goal of these methods is to condense into a summary metric the benefit-risk profile of a product so that manufacturers, regulators, clinicians and patients can better understand and participate in risk management. A second article will present examples of these methods.

Adverse events with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD): a cohort study of leflunomide compared with other DMARD.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the incidence of serious adverse events (AE) during treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), focusing on leflunomide (LEF). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of a large US insurance claims database was performed. Study groups were patients with RA classified by DMARD exposure as either no-DMARD therapy, single-agent DMARD (monotherapy), or combination-DMARD therapy. Specific DMARD examined were leflunomide (LEF) and methotrexate (MTX), compared to other DMARD (penicillamine, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, gold, etanercept, infliximab) and no DMARD (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, COX-2 inhibitors). All AE reported were considered endpoints; primary endpoints included hepatic, dermatologic, hematologic, infectious, respiratory, hypertension, and pancreatitis AE. RESULTS: The 40,594 RA patients of the study period (September 1998 to December 2000) accumulated 83,143 person-years (PY) of followup. Followup for each of the groups was: DMARD-monotherapy, 46,054 PY (55% of total); combination-DMARD, 25,830 PY (14%); and no-DMARD, 11,259 PY (14%). The incidence rate of all AE combined was significantly lower for LEF monotherapy (94 events/1000 PY) than MTX (145 events/1000 PY), other DMARD (143 events/1000 PY), or no DMARD (383 events/1000 PY) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The "all-AE" rates during combination therapy with LEF + MTX (43/1000 PY) and LEF + other DMARD (59/1000 PY) were lower than the "all-AE" rate for DMARD + MTX (70/1000 PY; p = 0.002). LEF monotherapy had the lowest rate of hepatic events in the DMARD monotherapy groups. CONCLUSION: The rates of AE in the LEF group, alone and combined with MTX, were generally lower than or comparable to the AE rates seen with MTX and other agents.