Liver, renal, genitourinary and diabetic ketoacidosis risks among new users of empagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes: Post-authorization safety study based on multinational cohorts.

AIM: To estimate risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), acute liver injury (ALI), acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), severe complications of urinary tract infection (UTI) and genital infection (GI) among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating empagliflozin versus those initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this large multinational, observational, new-user cohort study in UK, Danish and US healthcare data sources, patients initiated empagliflozin or a DPP-4 inhibitor between August 2014 and August 2019, were aged ≥18 years, and had ≥12 months' continuous health plan enrolment. Incidence rates by exposure and incidence rate ratios, adjusted for propensity-score deciles, were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 64 599 empagliflozin initiators and 203 315 DPP-4 inhibitor initiators were included. There was an increased risk [pooled adjusted incidence rate ratios (95% confidence interval)] of DKA [2.19 (1.74-2.76)] and decreased risks of ALI [0.77 (0.50-1.19) in patients without predisposing conditions of liver disease; 0.70 (0.56-0.88) in all patients] and AKI [0.54 (0.41-0.73)]. In the UK data, there was an increased risk of GI [males: 4.04 (3.46-4.71); females: 3.24 (2.81-3.74)] and decreased risks of CKD [0.53 (0.43-0.65)] and severe complications of UTI [0.51 (0.37-0.72)]. The results were generally consistent in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DDP-4 inhibitor use, empagliflozin use was associated with increased risks of DKA and GI and decreased risks of ALI, AKI, CKD and severe complications of UTI. These associations are consistent with previous studies and known class effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, including renoprotective effects and beneficial effects on alanine aminotransferase levels.

Lessons learned from a multi-data source research collaboration: The mirabegron post-authorization safety study program.

BACKGROUND: Many factors contribute to developing and conducting a successful multi-data source, non-interventional, post-authorization safety study (NI-PASS) for submission to multiple health authorities. Such studies are often large undertakings; evaluating and sharing lessons learned can provide useful insights to others considering similar studies. OBJECTIVES: We discuss challenges and key methodological and organizational factors that led to the delivery of a successful post-marketing requirement (PMR)/PASS program investigating the risk of cardiovascular and cancer events among users of mirabegron, an oral medication for the treatment of overactive bladder. RESULTS: We provide context and share learnings, including sections on research program collaboration, scientific transparency, organizational approach, mitigation of uncertainty around potential delays, validity of study outcomes, selection of data sources and optimizing patient numbers, choice of comparator groups and enhancing precision of estimates of associations, potential confounding and generalizability of study findings, and interpretation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This large PMR/PASS program was a long-term commitment from all parties and benefited from an effective coordinating center and extensive scientific interactions across research partners, scientific advisory board, study sponsor, and health authorities, and delivered useful learnings related to the design and organization of multi-data source NI-PASS.

Metadata for Data dIscoverability aNd Study rEplicability in obseRVAtional Studies (MINERVA): Development and Pilot of a Metadata List and Catalogue in Europe.

PURPOSE: Metadata for data dIscoverability aNd study rEplicability in obseRVAtional studies (MINERVA), a European Medicines Agency-funded project (EUPAS39322), defined a set of metadata to describe real-world data sources (RWDSs) and piloted metadata collection in a prototype catalogue to assist investigators from data source discoverability through study conduct. METHODS: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe. RESULTS: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of hypothesis evaluating real-world evidence studies on treatment effects: A good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force.

PROBLEM: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. WHAT WE DID: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The overarching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. STRATEGIES TO DISSEMINATE AND FACILITATE USE: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of Hypothesis Evaluating Real-World Evidence Studies on Treatment Effects: A Good Practices Report of a Joint ISPE/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. METHODS: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The over-arching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. STRATEGIES TO DISSEMINATE AND FACILITATE USE: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

Validation of cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: Strategies to identify and validate acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke in primary-care electronic records may impact effect measures, but to an unknown extent. Additionally, the validity of cardiovascular risk factors that could act as confounders in studies on those endpoints has not been thoroughly assessed in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink's (CPRD's) GOLD database. We explored the validity of algorithms to identify cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors and evaluated different outcome-identification strategies using these algorithms for estimation of adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs). METHODS: First, we identified AMI, stroke, smoking, obesity, and menopausal status in a cohort treated for overactive bladder by applying computerized algorithms to primary care medical records (2004-2012). We validated these cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors with physician questionnaires (gold standard for this analysis). Second, we estimated IRRs for AMI and stroke using algorithm-identified and questionnaire-confirmed cases, comparing these with IRRs from cases identified through linkage with hospitalization/mortality data (best estimate). RESULTS: For AMI, the algorithm's positive predictive value (PPV) was >90%. Initial algorithms for stroke performed less well because of inclusion of codes for prevalent stroke; algorithm refinement increased PPV to 80% but decreased sensitivity by 20%. Algorithms for smoking and obesity were considered valid. IRRs based on questionnaire-confirmed cases only were closer to IRRs estimated from hospitalization/mortality data than IRRs from algorithm-identified cases. CONCLUSIONS: AMI, stroke, smoking, obesity, and postmenopausal status can be accurately identified in CPRD. Physician questionnaire-validated AMI and stroke cases yield IRRs closest to the best estimate.

Use of intravenous iron and risk of anaphylaxis: A multinational observational post-authorisation safety study in Europe.

PURPOSE: This post-authorisation safety study estimated the risk of anaphylaxis in patients receiving intravenous (IV) iron in Europe, with interest in iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. Studies conducted in the United States have reported risk of anaphylaxis to IV iron ranging from 2.0 to 6.8 per 10 000 first treatments. METHODS: Cohort study of IV iron new users, captured mostly through pharmacy ambulatory dispensing, from populations covered by health and administrative data sources in five European countries from 1999 to 2017. Anaphylaxis events were identified through an algorithm that used parenteral penicillin as a positive control. RESULTS: A total of 304 210 patients with a first IV iron treatment (6367 iron dextran), among whom 13-16 anaphylaxis cases were identified and reported as a range to comply with data protection regulations. The pooled unadjusted incidence proportion (IP) ranged from 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.9) to 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3-1.0) per 10 000 first treatments. No events were identified at first dextran treatments. There were 231 294 first penicillin treatments with 30 potential cases of anaphylaxis (IP = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7 per 10 000 treatments). CONCLUSION: We found an IP of anaphylaxis from 0.4 to 0.5 per 10 000 first IV iron treatments. The study captured only a fraction of IV iron treatments administered in hospitals, where most first treatments are likely to happen. Due to this limitation, the study could not exclude a differential risk of anaphylaxis between iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. The IP of anaphylaxis in users of penicillin was consistent with incidences reported in the literature.

Validity of hospital ICD-10-GM codes to identify acute liver injury in Germany.

PURPOSE: Acute liver injury (ALI) is an important adverse drug reaction. We estimated the positive predictive values (PPVs) of ICD-10-GM codes of ALI used in an international postauthorisation safety study (PASS). METHODS: Analyses used routine data (2007 to 2016, adults) from a German academic hospital in a cross-sectional design. Two algorithms from the PASS were applied to extract potential cases from the hospital information system: specific end point (A) (discharge diagnosis of liver disease-specific codes) and less specific end point (B) (discharge and outpatient-specific and nonspecific codes suggestive of liver injury). ALI cases were confirmed on the basis of plasma liver enzyme activity elevation. Secondary analysis was performed following exclusion of cases with known cancer, chronic liver, biliary and pancreatic disease, heart failure, and alcohol-related disorders, as applied in the PASS. RESULTS: On the basis of ICD codes: outcome A, 154 cases (143 with case notes and lab data for case verification); outcome B, 485 cases (357 with case notes and lab data). ALI was confirmed in 71 outcome A cases, PPV of 49.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.2%-58.1%), and 100 outcome B cases, PPV of 28.0% (95% CI, 23.4%-33.0%). Applying exclusion criteria increased PPV (95% CI) to 62.7% (50.0%-74.2%) for outcome A and 45.7% (37.2%-54.3%) for outcome B. CONCLUSIONS: In safety studies on hepatotoxicity based on routine data using ICD-10-GM discharge codes and when validation of potential cases is not feasible, only the more specific codes should be used to describe ALI, and competing diagnoses for liver injury should be excluded to avoid substantial misclassification.

GOLD assessment of COPD severity in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

PURPOSE: To evaluate availability of spirometry and symptom data in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (United Kingdom) to assess COPD severity using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2016 definition and comparing it with an algorithm used in other studies. METHODS: This was a descriptive, noninterventional, secondary database cohort study of patients with COPD aged 40 years or older, who initiated treatment with specific COPD medications. Patients were classified according to COPD severity (1) in GOLD 2016 "ABCD" categories based on symptoms (Medical Research Council dyspnea grade, COPD Assessment Test, breathlessness), percent predicted FEV1, and exacerbation history and (2) as mild, moderate, severe, or very severe based on treatment and exacerbation history. RESULTS: The study included 63 900 patients with COPD aged 40 years or older that were new users of 1 or more COPD medication of interest. Percent predicted FEV1 was available for 80.9% of patients; symptoms for 75.6% of patients. Classification into GOLD 2016 ABCD categories was possible for 75.6% of the patients. The GOLD 2016 ABCD definition classified more patients under the high-risk categories (22.1%, A; 18.8%, B; 21.3%, C; 37.9%, D) than did the adapted algorithm (7.9%, mild; 48.6%, moderate; 42.1%, severe; 1.4%, very severe). CONCLUSION: Using our adaptation of the GOLD 2016 COPD severity classification, the information in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink allowed us to ascertain COPD severity in approximately 75% of patients with COPD. Algorithms that include medication use tend to misclassify patients with the extreme COPD severity categories.

Validity of ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes used to identify acute liver injury: A study in three European data sources.

PURPOSE: Validating cases of acute liver injury (ALI) in health care data sources is challenging. Previous validation studies reported low positive predictive values (PPVs). METHODS: Case validation was undertaken in a study conducted from 2009 to 2014 assessing the risk of ALI in antidepressants users in databases in Spain (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and the Danish National Health Registers. Three ALI definitions were evaluated: primary (specific hospital discharge codes), secondary (specific and nonspecific hospital discharge codes), and tertiary (specific and nonspecific hospital and outpatient codes). The validation included review of patient profiles (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and of clinical data from medical records (EpiChron and Denmark). ALI cases were confirmed when liver enzyme values met a definition by an international working group. RESULTS: Overall PPVs (95% CIs) for the study ALI definitions were, for the primary ALI definition, 84% (60%-97%) (EpiChron), 60% (26%-88%) (SIDIAP), and 74% (60%-85%) (Denmark); for the secondary ALI definition, 65% (45%-81%) (EpiChron), 40% (19%-64%) (SIDIAP), and 70% (64%-77%) (Denmark); and for the tertiary ALI definition, 25% (18%-34%) (EpiChron), 8% (7%-9%) (SIDIAP), and 47% (42%-52%) (Denmark). The overall PPVs were higher for specific than for nonspecific codes and for hospital discharge than for outpatient codes. The nonspecific code "unspecified jaundice" had high PPVs in Denmark. CONCLUSIONS: PPVs obtained apply to patients using antidepressants without preexisting liver disease or ALI risk factors. To maximize validity, studies on ALI should prioritize hospital specific discharge codes and should include hospital codes for unspecified jaundice. Case validation is required when ALI outpatient cases are considered.

Challenges of evaluating chronic heart failure and acute heart failure events in research studies using large health care databases.

Epidemiological studies on heart failure (HF) using large health care databases are becoming increasingly frequent, as they represent an invaluable opportunity to characterize the importance and risk factors of HF from a population perspective. Nevertheless, because of its complex diagnosis and natural history, the heterogeneous use of the relevant terminology in routine clinical practice, and the limitations of some disease coding systems, HF can be a challenging condition to assess using large health care databases as the main source of information. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the challenges that researchers may face, with a special focus on the identification and validation of chronic HF cases and acute HF decompensations. For each of these challenges, we present some potential solutions inspired by the literature and/or based on our research experience, aimed at increasing the internal validity of research and at informing its interpretation. We also discuss future directions on the field, presenting constructive recommendations aimed at facilitating the conduct of valid epidemiological studies on HF in the coming years.

Validation of Cancer Cases Using Primary Care, Cancer Registry, and Hospitalization Data in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, hospital or cancer registry data can be linked to electronic medical records for a subset of general practices and years. METHODS: We used Clinical Practice Research Datalink data (2004-2012) from patients treated for overactive bladder. We electronically identified provisional cases of 10 common cancers in General Practitioner Online Database data and validated them by medical profile review. In practices with linkage to Hospital Episodes Statistics and National Cancer Data Repository (2004-2010), we validated provisional cancer cases against these data sources. This linkage also let us identify additional cancer diagnoses in individuals without cancer diagnosis records in the General Practitioner Online Database. RESULTS: Among 50,840 patients, 1,486 provisional cancer cases were identified in the General Practitioner Online Database for 2004-2012. Medical profile review confirmed 93% of 661 cases in nonlinked practices (range, 100% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas and uterine cancer to 77% of skin melanomas) and 96% of 825 cases in linked practices (100% of kidney and uterine cancers to 92% of melanomas). In the subset of linked practices, for 2004-2010, 720 cases were confirmed, of which 68% were identifiable in the General Practitioner Online Database (range, 90% of breast to 36% of kidney cancers). CONCLUSIONS: Most cases of cancer identified electronically in the General Practitioner Online Database were confirmed. A substantial proportion of cases, especially of cancer types not typically managed by general practitioners, would be missed without Hospital Episodes Statistics and National Cancer Data Repository data (and are likely missed in nonlinked practices). See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B315. REGISTRATION (BEFORE STUDY CONDUCT): European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EU PAS Registry) number EUPAS5529, http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=11107.

Comparison of cardiovascular events among treatments for overactive bladder: a Danish nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the cardiovascular safety of antimuscarinic drugs to treat overactive bladder (OAB) in Denmark. METHODS: This was a cohort study using data recorded in Danish registries from patients newly exposed to darifenacin, fesoterodine, oxybutynin, solifenacin, tolterodine, or trospium in 2004-2012. We estimated crude and standardized incidence rates (IRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI); stroke; cardiovascular mortality; major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a combined endpoint of the previous three outcomes); and all-cause death for the individual and combined drugs. We also estimated crude, standardized, and propensity score-stratified incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing individual antimuscarinic drugs to tolterodine as the reference. RESULTS: Among 72,917 new users of OAB drugs (mean age, 66 years; 60% women), the standardized IR (95% confidence interval) per 1000 person-years for current use of any OAB drug was 2.7 (2.5-2.9) for AMI, 1.3 (1.2-1.5) for stroke, 7.8 (7.5-8.1) for MACE, 4.8 (4.5-5.0) for cardiovascular mortality, and 15.2 (14.8-15.6) for all-cause mortality. Propensity score-stratified IRRs for current use (reference, tolterodine) were close to the null for all drugs and endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify differences in the risk of cardiovascular events or mortality among users of individual antimuscarinic OAB drugs.

Methodological challenges when evaluating potential off-label prescribing of drugs using electronic health care databases: A case study of dabigatran etexilate in Europe.

PURPOSE: To report and discuss estimated prevalence of potential off-label use and associated methodological challenges using a case study of dabigatran. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study using 3 databases with different types of clinical information available: Cegedim Strategic Data Longitudinal Patient Database (CSD-LPD), France (cardiologist panel, n = 1706; general practitioner panel, n = 2813; primary care data); National Health Databases, Denmark (n = 28 619; hospital episodes and dispensed ambulatory medications); and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), UK (linkable to Hospital Episode Statistics [HES], n = 2150; not linkable, n = 1285; primary care data plus hospital data for HES-linkable patients). STUDY PERIOD: August 2011 to August 2015. Two definitions were used to estimate potential off-label use: a broad definition of on-label prescribing using codes for disease indication (eg, atrial fibrillation [AF]), and a restrictive definition excluding patients with conditions for which dabigatran is not indicated (eg, valvular AF). RESULTS: Prevalence estimates under the broad definition ranged from 5.7% (CPRD-HES) to 34.0% (CSD-LPD) and, under the restrictive definition, from 17.4% (CPRD-HES) to 44.1% (CSD-LPD). For the majority of potential off-label users, no diagnosis potentially related to anticoagulant use was identified. Key methodological challenges were the limited availability of detailed clinical information, likely leading to overestimation of off-label use, and differences in the information available, which may explain the disparate prevalence estimates across data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of potential off-label use should be interpreted cautiously due to limitations in available information. In this context, CPRD HES-linkable estimates are likely to be the most accurate.

Effectiveness of risk minimization measures for the use of cilostazol in United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and Germany.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of risk minimization measures-labeling changes and communication to health care professionals-recommended by the European Medicines Agency for use of cilostazol for the treatment of intermittent claudication in Europe. METHODS: Observational study of cilostazol in The Health Improvement Network (United Kingdom), EpiChron Cohort (Spain), SIDIAP (Spain), Swedish National Databases, and GePaRD (Germany). Among new users of cilostazol, we compared the prevalence of conditions targeted by the risk minimization measures in the periods before (2002-2012) and after (2014) implementation. Conditions evaluated were prevalence of smoking, cardiovascular conditions, concurrent use of ≥2 antiplatelet agents, concurrent use of potent CYP3A4/CYP2C19 inhibitors and high-dose cilostazol, early monitoring of all users, and continuous monitoring of users at high cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: We included 22 593 and 1821 new users of cilostazol before and after implementation of risk minimization measures, respectively. After implementation, the frequency of several conditions related to the labeling changes improved in all the study populations: prevalence of use decreased between 13% (EpiChron) and 57% (SIDIAP), frequency of cardiovascular contraindications decreased between 8% (GePaRD) and 84% (EpiChron), and concurrent use of high-dose cilostazol and potent CYP3A4/CYP2C19 inhibitors decreased between 6% (Sweden) and 100% (EpiChron). The frequency of other conditions improved in most study populations, except smoking, which decreased only in EpiChron (48% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the risk minimization measures implemented by the EMA for the use of cilostazol have been effective in all European countries studied, except for smoking cessation before initiating cilostazol, which remains an area of improvement.

Randomized trial of switching from prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prescribed celecoxib: the Standard care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT).

BACKGROUND: Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and conventional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects. We compared the CV safety of switching to celecoxib vs. continuing nsNSAID therapy in a European setting. METHOD: Patients aged 60 years and over with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established CV disease and taking chronic prescribed nsNSAIDs, were randomized to switch to celecoxib or to continue their previous nsNSAID. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction or other biomarker positive acute coronary syndrome, non-fatal stroke or CV death analysed using a Cox model with a pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 1.4 for the hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: In total, 7297 participants were randomized. During a median 3-year follow-up, fewer subjects than expected developed an on-treatment (OT) primary CV event and the rate was similar for celecoxib, 0.95 per 100 patient-years, and nsNSAIDs, 0.86 per 100 patient-years (HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.50). Comparable intention-to-treat (ITT) rates were 1.14 per 100 patient-years with celecoxib and 1.10 per 100 patient-years with nsNSAIDs (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.33; P = 0.75). Pre-specified non-inferiority was achieved in the ITT analysis. The upper bound of the 95% confidence limit for the absolute increase in OT risk associated with celecoxib treatment was two primary events per 1000 patient-years exposure. There were only 15 adjudicated secondary upper gastrointestinal complication endpoints (0.078/100 patient-years on celecoxib vs. 0.053 on nsNSAIDs OT, 0.078 vs. 0.053 ITT). More gastrointestinal serious adverse reactions and haematological adverse reactions were reported on nsNSAIDs than celecoxib, but more patients withdrew from celecoxib than nsNSAIDs (50.9% patients vs. 30.2%; P < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In subjects 60 years and over, free from CV disease and taking prescribed chronic nsNSAIDs, CV events were infrequent and similar on celecoxib and nsNSAIDs. There was no advantage of a strategy of switching prescribed nsNSAIDs to prescribed celecoxib. This study excluded an increased risk of the primary endpoint of more than two events per 1000 patient-years associated with switching to prescribed celecoxib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00447759; Unique identifier: NCT00447759.

A multinational, drug utilization study to investigate the use of dexmedetomidine (Dexdor®) in clinical practice in the EU.

AIMS: Dexmedetomidine (dexdor®) is approved in the European Union (EU) for sedation of adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). The present observational, retrospective study was requested by the European Medicines Agency to investigate dexmedetomidine use in clinical practice, with a particular focus on off-label use, including the paediatric population. METHODS: Study countries and sites were chosen from those with highest dexmedetomidine use, based on sales. Site selection (blind) was conducted by a multispecialist, independent group. Anonymized data on demographics, treatment indication, dexmedetomidine dosing, concomitant medications and treatment effectiveness were collected retrospectively from records of all dexmedetomidine-treated patients at the site during the enrolment period. Informed consent was waived, to avoid influencing the prescribing of dexmedetomidine. Recruitment was completed within 18 months of first site initiation. RESULTS: Data from 2000 patients were collected from 16 hospitals in four EU countries (Finland 750, Poland 505, Germany 470, Austria 275). The median age was 62 years, with more males (70.2%) than females. Dexmedetomidine was primarily used in the adult ICU (86.0%) for ICU sedation (78.6%) and mostly dosed according the product label. The intended sedative effect was obtained in 84.9% of administrations. Paediatric use (5.9% of patients, mostly in Austria and Finland) occurred mainly in the adult or paediatric ICU (75.6%) for sedation (67.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most patients were treated with dexmedetomidine according to the product labelling. Use in children was limited but significant and similar in scope to that in adults. Administrations not fully according to the product labelling usually occurred in an ICU environment and reflected extensively investigated clinical uses of dexmedetomidine.

Characterization of new users of cilostazol in the UK, Spain, Sweden, and Germany.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of new users of cilostazol in Europe with the aim to support the evaluation of its benefit/risk as used in regular clinical practice before the implementation of labeling changes recommended by the European Medicines Agency. METHODS: New users of cilostazol were identified in populations enrolled in five European health automated databases in the UK (The Health Improvement Network [THIN]), Spain (EpiChron cohort and Information System for the Improvement of Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]), Sweden (National Registers), and Germany (German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database [GePaRD]) between 2002 and 2012. New users were characterized according to the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities, concurrent use of interacting medications, new contraindications, duration of use, and potential off-label prescribing. RESULTS: We identified 22 593 new users of cilostazol. The median age was between 68.0 (THIN) and 73.7 (Sweden) years. More than 78% of users had concomitant cardiovascular disease, and between 78.8% (GePaRD) and 91.6% (THIN) were treated with interacting medications. Prevalence of new cardiovascular contraindications ranged from 1.5% (THIN) to 11.6% (GePaRD), and concurrent use of two or more antiplatelet drugs ranged from 6.3% (SIDIAP) to 13.5% (EpiChron cohort). Between 39.4% (Sweden) and 52.9% (THIN) of users discontinued cilostazol in the first 3 months. Between 41.0% (SIDIAP) and 93.4% (THIN) were considered to have received cilostazol according to the European Medicines Agency labeling. CONCLUSIONS: In this collaborative European study, most cilostazol users were elderly patients with a high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and other comorbidity and concurrent use of interacting drugs, indicating that this is a vulnerable population at high risk of complications, especially cardiovascular events. © 2017 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose-lowering drugs (NIBGLD). METHODS: We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I(2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted. RESULTS: The summary relative risk (sRR) (95% CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04-1.24) [I(2) = 55%]. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced [I(2) = 16%]. The sRR (95% CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02-1.36) [I(2) = 42%]. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I (2) ≥ 70%). The sRR (95% CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14-1.34) [I(2) = 41%] and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75-1.38) [I(2) = 17%]. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24% compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity.