Suicide-specific mortality among patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, major depressive disorder with prior suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, or major depressive disorder alone.

BACKGROUND: The impact of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or prior suicidal ideation/suicide attempt (SI/SA) on mortality by suicide among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) is not well known. This retrospective, observational, descriptive cohort study characterized real-world rates of suicide-specific mortality among patients with MDD with or without TRD or SI/SA. METHODS: Adult patients with MDD among commercially insured and Medicare enrollees in Optum Research Database were included and assigned to three cohorts: those with treatment-resistant MDD (TRD), those with MDD and SI/SA (MDD+SI/SA), and those with MDD without TRD or SI/SA (MDD alone). Suicide-specific mortality was obtained from the National Death Index. The effects of demographic characteristics and SI/SA in the year prior to the end of observation on suicide-specific mortality were assessed. RESULTS: For the 139,753 TRD, 85,602 MDD+SI/SA, and 572,098 MDD alone cohort patients, mean age ranged from 55 to 59 years and the majority were female. At baseline, anxiety disorders were present in 53.92%, 44.11%, and 21.72% of patients with TRD, MDD+SI/SA, and MDD alone, respectively. Suicide-mortality rates in the three cohorts were 0.14/100 person-years for TRD, 0.27/100 person-years for MDD+SI/SA, and 0.04/100 person-years for MDD alone. SI/SA during the year prior to the end of observation, younger age, and male sex were associated with increased suicide risk. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TRD and MDD+SI/SA have a heightened risk of mortality by suicide compared with patients with MDD alone. Suicide rates were higher in patients with recent history versus older or no history of SI/SA, men versus women, and those of young age versus older age.

Impact of the extended-release/long-acting opioid analgesics risk evaluation and mitigation strategy on prescribing practices.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of extended-release (ER)/long-acting (LA) opioid prescriber training on prescribing behaviors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Prescriber training was evaluated from June 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. The full study period was 2 years longer, from June 1, 2012 through December 31, 2017, to include data for all prescribers' 1-year pretraining and post-training periods. PARTICIPANTS: 24,428 prescribers who wrote ER/LA opioid prescriptions for eligible patients, with a record of training from the partner continuing education provider between June 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016. INTERVENTION: ER/LA opioid prescriber training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescribing behaviors 1-year before (pretraining) and after (post-training) prescribers completed training, specifically the proportion of opioid-nontolerant patients receiving ER/LA opioids indicated for opioid-tolerant patients and for patients receiving ≥100 morphine equivalents dose daily, and the proportion of concomitant users of central nervous system depressant drugs. RESULTS: The differences in the proportion of opioid-nontolerant patients receiving ER/LA opioids indicated for opi-oid-tolerant patients and for patients receiving ≥100 morphine equivalents dose daily were -0.69 percent (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: -1.78 percent, 0.40 percent) and -0.23 percent (95 percent CI: -1.18 percent, 0.68 percent), respectively. The differences in the proportion of concomitant users of central nervous system depressant drugs were -0.94 percent (95 percent CI: -1.39 percent; -0.48 percent) for benzodiazepines, 0.06 percent (95 percent CI: -0.13 percent; 0.25 percent) for antipsychotics, -0.41 percent (95 percent CI: -0.69 percent; -0.13 percent) for hypnotics/sedatives, and 0.08 percent (95 percent CI: -0.40 percent; 0.57 percent) for muscle relaxants. CONCLUSIONS: While prescribers showed some changes in prescribing behavior after completing training, training was not associated with clinically relevant changes in prescribing behaviors.

Revealing Unknown Benefits of Existing Medications to Aid the Discovery of New Treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Objective: To systematically identify novel pharmacological strategies for preventing or treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by leveraging large-scale analysis of real-world observational data. Methods: Using a self-controlled study design, the association between 1399 medications and the incidence of PTSD across four US insurance claims databases covering commercially insured, Medicare eligible, and Medicaid patients was examined. A validated algorithm for identifying PTSD in claims data was used, and medications were identified by their RxNorm ingredient. Medications used to treat PTSD or its symptoms (e.g., antidepressants, antipsychotics) were excluded. Medications associated with ≥30% reduction in risk of PTSD in ≥2 databases were identified. Results: A total of 137,182,179 individuals were included in the analysis. Fifteen medications met the threshold criteria for a potential protective effect on PTSD; six were categorized as "primary signals" while the remaining nine were considered "potential signals". The primary signals include a beta blocker that has been previously studied for PTSD, and five medications used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The potential signals include four medications used to treat substance use disorders and five medications used to treat sleep disorders. Discussion: The medications identified in this analysis provide targets for further research in studies that are designed to examine specific hypotheses regarding these medications and the incidence of PTSD. This work may aid in discovering novel therapeutic approaches to treat PTSD, wherein new and effective treatments are badly needed.

Differences between men and women in response to antiseizure medication use and the likelihood of developing treatment resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of epilepsy is slightly higher in women than in men and sensitivity to seizure stimuli differs between sexes. Some evidence suggests sex differences in response to antiseizure medications exist mainly due to inconsistent pharmacokinetic differences; however, there is a lack of real-world evidence examining differences in response to antiseizure medications between men and women. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in five large US healthcare databases. The population included adult patients with epilepsy, newly exposed to levetiracetam, and naive to antiseizure medication. The first exposure to levetiracetam was the index date. The requirement that all patients received the same medication was done to avoid potential confounding due to differences in index treatment. The outcome was the development of treatment resistant epilepsy (TRE), defined as having at least three distinct antiseizure medications in 1 year. The proportion of patients who developed TRE within 1 year following the index date was calculated. To compare the risk of developing TRE between sexes, relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and estimates were pooled using meta-analytic techniques stratified by gender and age. RESULTS: A total of 147 334 subjects were included in the databases, 50.8% were women, and 4.27% developed TRE. The comorbid profile differed greatly between men and women; however, the types of epilepsy syndromes observed during baseline were similar between the two groups. Across all databases, women were more likely to develop TRE than men (pooled RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17-1.38). Results remained similar when stratified by age. SIGNIFICANCE: This study assessed sex differences in response to antiseizure medications using the development of TRE as a proxy for effectiveness. Women newly exposed to levetiracetam were 27% more likely to develop TRE than men, independent of age.

Autism: Comorbidities and Treatment Patterns in the Real World, a Retrospective Cohort Study Among Children, Adolescents and Adults Newly Diagnosed with Autism.

We used real world data to summarize comorbidities and interventions among patients newly diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Data were derived from two claims-based US healthcare databases; Medicaid and Optum to construct a retrospective cohort of 36,000 patients. Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD) was the most common co-morbidity (Medicaid: 50.09%; Optum: 44.16%), followed by mood disorder (Medicaid: 16.56% and Optum: 17.47%). Most patients received at least one type of treatment. Behavioral therapy was common (74.64% in Medicaid and 71.97% in Optum). More than half the cohorts received at least 1 pharmacotherapy. However, pharmacotherapies were diverse. Combination therapy and therapy switching was common. Understanding the clinical diversity and complexity of patients with ASD is an important first step in understanding unmet therapeutic needs.

Treatment patterns of patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation or attempt: a U.S. population-based study utilizing real-world data.

BACKGROUND: There is a knowledge gap regarding the treatment patterns of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who experience suicidal ideation or a suicide attempt (SI/SA). METHODS: Patients with SI/SA were identified from a large US-based claims database covering 84 million lives, during 1/1/2014-3/31/2020. Patients with MDD were indexed at their first diagnosis for SI/SA and followed up to 365 days. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included procedures of electroconvulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation, and pharmacotherapy including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, and lithium. RESULTS: There were 42,204 MDD + SI/SA patients identified. In the year prior to the index event > 40% of individuals received an SSRI and more than one-third received an anxiolytic. Within 1 year following, 84.4% received ≥1 of the treatments of interest. Of those, 70.2% went on to a subsequent class-based regimen, 46.3% received a third, and 28.1% received ≥4. More than three-quarters of patients received multiple treatment classes simultaneously. SSRIs were the most common treatments during follow-up (61.9%), followed by other antidepressants (51.3%), anxiolytics (50.8%) and anticonvulsants (43.6%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a large amount of variability and polypharmacy in the treatments received by MDD patients with SI/SA, and is much more complex than what has been previously observed in the general MDD population. Within one-year, many patients received four or more unique class-based regimens and most patients received treatments from multiple classes simultaneously, indicating the high unmet medical need and therapy refractoriness of this patient population.

Treatment with TNF-α inhibitors versus methotrexate and the association with dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, outside of the central nervous system, may result in clinical improvement of Alzheimer's disease (AD) outcomes. TNF-α inhibitors (TNFIs) are effective treatments for various autoimmune conditions and may be effective for preventing and/or treating AD. The objective of this study was to compare the risk of dementia and AD in patients initiating methotrexate versus those initiating TNFIs. METHODS: Insurance claims data from databases of commercially insured and Medicare-eligible patients were used to estimate the risk of dementia and AD within patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating a TNFI versus initiation of methotrexate. A sensitivity analysis included all patients without the RA diagnosis requirement. The at-risk period spanned from the index date until a diagnosis of the outcome, loss-to-follow-up, or receipt of the comparator drug. Patients were matched 1-to-1 using propensity scores. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). Negative controls were used to calibrate the results. RESULTS: A total of 11,092 new TNFI patients and 44,023 new methotrexate patients were identified, and 8925 from each group were matched. The outcome of dementia occurred in 1.4% of patients in both groups. The calibrated results from the Cox regression found no difference between the two groups (commercially insured database: calibrated HR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval = 0.45 to 1.05; Medicare-only database: 1.14, 0.66 to 1.96). Results were similar in all sensitivity analyses: outcome of AD and including patients without RA. DISCUSSION: No significant difference for the risk of dementia or AD was seen between patients initiating a TNFI versus methotrexate. Although this study cannot conclude whether use of TNFIs is protective against dementia and AD compared with receiving no treatment, there was no evidence that it is more protective than the active comparator methotrexate.

Individuals who develop drug-resistant epilepsy within a year after initial diagnosis have higher burden of mental and physical diseases one-year prior to epilepsy diagnosis as compared to those whose seizures were controlled during the same interval.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a neurological disease characterized by recurrent, unprovoked seizures and its impact on biological, cognitive, psychological, and social outcomes. An unmet need for finding effective treatment options exists. Identifying medical diagnoses present prior to a diagnosis of epilepsy is an important step in increasing our understanding of how people with epilepsy may respond to therapy, help guide clinicians in managing associated comorbid conditions, and inform future research. METHODS: A population-based retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data to explore differences in medical diagnoses prior to an initial diagnosis of epilepsy between patients with and without drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) identified within one-year post diagnosis by evaluating standardized mean differences between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 205,183 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy were identified. Of those, 4.1% (n = 8340) were considered drug resistant one-year post diagnosis. Pain and mood disorders were the common physical and psychiatric diagnoses in both cohorts. Differences between the newly diagnosed epilepsy and DRE cohorts were observed. Patients in the DRE cohort were younger, had more encounters with the healthcare system, and higher burden of disease for both physical (e.g., headache, neuropathy, muscular-skeletal disorders, and traumatic brain injury) and psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, suicidal thoughts, drug dependency, and sleep disorders). CONCLUSION: Physical and psychiatric diagnoses are common one year prior to first diagnosis of epilepsy in administrative claims data. Compared to patients without DRE, those who develop DRE within one-year post initial diagnosis demonstrated a higher burden of disease.

Exploring real-world evidence to uncover unknown drug benefits and support the discovery of new treatment targets for depressive and bipolar disorders.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive and bipolar disorders are associated with impaired quality of life and high economic burden. Although progress has been made in our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and the development of novel pharmacological treatments, a large unmet need remains for finding effective treatment options. The purpose of this study was to identify potential new mechanisms of actions or treatment targets that could inform future research and development opportunities for major depressive and bipolar disorders. METHODS: A self-controlled cohort study was conducted to examine associations between 1933 medications and incidence of major depressive and bipolar disorders across four US insurance claims databases. Presence of incident depressive or bipolar disorders were captured for each patient prior to or after drug exposure and incident rate ratios were calculated. Medications that demonstrated ≥50% reduction in risk for both depressive and bipolar disorders within two or more databases were evaluated as potential treatment targets. RESULTS: Eight medications met our inclusion criteria, which fell into three treatment groups: drugs used in substance use disorders; drugs that affect the cholinergic system; and drugs used for the management of cardiovascular-related conditions. LIMITATIONS: This study was not designed to confirm a causal association nor inform current clinical practice. Instead, this research and the methods employed intended to be hypothesis generating and help uncover potential treatment pathways that could warrant further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Several potential drug targets that could aid further research and discovery into novel treatments for depressive and bipolar disorders were identified.

Characteristics of patients with major depressive disorder switching SSRI/SNRI therapy compared with those augmenting with an atypical antipsychotic in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND: Following a partial response of first-line antidepressant therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), there is a choice to augment treatment with another agent or switch to a different antidepressant. OBJECTIVE: To report the prevalence and compare the characteristics of patients switching from their initial selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) to a new SSRI/SNRI versus those augmenting SSRI/SNRI therapy with a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA). METHODS: MDD patients receiving first-line SSRI/SNRI treatment were identified from a large US-based claims database during 2000-2019. Patients augmenting therapy with an SGA were compared with those who switched to a new SSRI/SNRI. The date of the treatment change was the index date. Previously diagnosed comorbid conditions, medication use and demographics were captured. Treatment patterns following the index date were also captured. Standardized differences (StdDiff) were used to quantify dissimilarities between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 4572 SGA add-on and 24,409 switching patients identified. SGA augmentation patients had more severe disease (diagnosed severe recurrent major depression: 24.7% vs. 9.5%, StdDiff = 0.41) and more diagnosed psychiatric conditions, including: suicidal thoughts (10.7% vs. 3.2%, StdDiff = 0.29), post-traumatic stress disorder (6.1% vs. 2.6%, StdDiff = 0.17) and alcohol abuse (5.4% vs. 2.7%, StdDiff = 0.14). SGA augmentation patients had higher rates of prior use of anxiolytics (37.4% vs. 28.2%, StdDiff = 0.20) and anticonvulsants (26.0% vs. 13.1%, StdDiff = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Patients adding an SGA to their SSRI/SNRI therapy appeared to have more severe depression and comorbid psychiatric profile than those switching their SSRI/SNRI. These differences are important to consider and adequately control for in any future comparative outcome research between these two groups.

Patient Knowledge of Safe Use of ER/LA Opioid Analgesics Following Implementation of the Class-Wide REMS: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for extended release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids in 2012. The purpose of this study was to assess patient knowledge of the safe use of these products following implementation of the REMS and to determine possible effects of the REMS, including impact on medication access. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient knowledge of safe use of ER/LA opioids and use of REMS patient education tools such as the Medication Guide (MG) and Patient Counseling Document (PCD). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of commercially insured (Commercial) and Medicare Advantage-insured (Medicare) adults with ≥1 pharmacy claim for an ER/LA opioid (10/01/2015 - 02/28/2017) in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database and Medicaid-insured (Medicaid) adult members of a research panel, about their knowledge of safe use of ER/LA opioids and receipt/comprehension of the MG and PCD. RESULTS: Survey respondents consisted of 382 Commercial, 43 Medicare and 40 Medicaid adults. While ≥95% of respondents received and read the MG, fewer were aware of the PCD (Commercial: 47%, Medicare: 65%, Medicaid: 53%). Almost 75% of the knowledge questions were answered correctly by ≥80% of all respondents; fewer respondents recognized that use of opioids as directed can lead to death (Commercial: 73%, Medicare: 56%, Medicaid: 63%), the MG should be read at each dispensing (Commercial: 78%, Medicare: 53%, Medicaid: 75%), opioids should not be stored in the medicine cabinet (Commercial: 77%, Medicare: 79%, Medicaid: 58%), missed doses should not be taken as soon as possible (Commercial: 56%, Medicare: 51%, Medicaid: 50%), and pills should not be crushed (Commercial: 85%, Medicare: 67%, Medicaid: 52%). CONCLUSION: Although most respondents reported reading and understanding the MG and exhibited knowledge of safe use of ER/LA opioids, providers' use of the PCD and increased understanding of safe use core messages need reinforcement.

Perspectives on the Implementation of Screening and Treatment for Depression and Alcohol Use Disorder in Primary Care in Colombia.

Depression and alcohol use disorder (AUD) greatly contribute to the burden of disease worldwide, and have large impact on Colombia's population. In this study, a qualitative analysis evaluates the implementation of a technology-supported model for screening, decision support, and digital therapy for depression and AUD in Colombian primary care clinics. Patient, provider, and administrator interviews were conducted, exploring attitudes towards depression and AUD, attitudes towards technology, and implementation successes and challenges. Researchers used qualitative methods to analyze interview themes. Despite stigma around depression and AUD, the model improved provider capacity to diagnose and manage patients, helped patients feel supported, and provided useful prevalence data for administrators. Challenges included limited provider time and questions about sustainability. The implementation facilitated the identification, diagnosis, and care of patients with depression and AUD. There is ongoing need to decrease stigma, create stronger networks of mental health professionals, and transition intervention ownership to the healthcare center.

Comments to Drs. Bahji, Vazquez, and Zarate.

In the absence of head-to-head studies directly comparing the efficacy of intranasal esketamine to that of intravenous ketamine, valid conclusions regarding comparative efficacy cannot be made based on the existing data from trials using markedly differing study designs and patient populations.

Application of Real-World Data and the REWARD Framework to Detect Unknown Benefits of Memantine and Identify Potential Disease Targets for New NMDA Receptor Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: Observational data may inform novel drug development programs by identifying previously unappreciated, clinical benefits of existing drugs. Several preclinical and clinical studies have suggested emergent therapeutic utility of drugs acting on the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, a subtype of glutamate receptors, including the antidementia drug memantine. METHODS: Using a self-controlled cohort study design, the association of exposure to the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine with the incidence of all observed disease outcomes in four US administrative claims databases, spanning from January 2000 through January 2019, was assessed. The databases used in this study were the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Database (CCAE), the IBM MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid Database (MDCD), the IBM MarketScan® Medicare Supplemental Database (MDCR), and the Optum©â€¯De-Identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. Outcomes were defined according to the unique Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) classification system codes and required a diagnosis on two or more distinct dates. Of 20,953 outcomes assessed, only those for which memantine was associated with a ≥ 50% reduction in risk in two or more databases were included. A meta-analysis with random effects was used to pool data across the databases. RESULTS: Overall, 312,336 patients were exposed to memantine during the study. After removing conditions related to dementia and memory loss, 60 outcomes met the threshold criteria. Results fell into five disease categories: mental disorders, substance use disorders, pain, gastrointestinal and colon disorders, and demyelinating disease. The bulk of findings fell into the first two groups, with 28 outcomes related to mental disorders and 24 related to substance use disorders. CONCLUSION: The present results confirm that NMDA receptor antagonism may have broader therapeutic utility than previously recognized. Further observational and clinical research may be warranted to explore the therapeutic benefit of NMDA antagonists for the outcomes found in this study.

At baseline patients treated with esketamine have higher burden of disease than other patients with treatment resistant depression: Learnings from a population based study.

INTRODUCTION: It is critical to assess who is being treated with a new marketed drug like esketamine to understand how it is used in the real-world setting and the effects of the medication. METHODS: Retrospective analysis using two large U.S. health care databases that included commercially insured and Medicaid patients. Patients treated with esketamine were identified and their baseline characteristics described and compared with the baseline characteristics of patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD) and with patients undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). To quantify the differences, standardized mean differences were calculated. RESULTS: In the commercially insured database, 418 patients were treated with esketamine and 830,047 patients were in the TRD group. Large differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Patients in the esketamine group were more likely to have severe depression, suicidal thoughts, and prior treatments with TMS or electroconvulsive therapy than the TRD control group. Patients in the esketamine group had more comorbid psychiatric conditions (anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorders, substance use disorders) and higher exposure to antipsychotics, antiepileptics, hypnotics and sedatives. In terms of general health, patients in the esketamine group had many more outpatient visits, were more likely to have chronic pain and higher Charlson comorbidity scores, a predicator of mortality. Results were similar for both the Medicaid and TMS populations. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with esketamine have a higher burden of disease than other patients with TRD. In any real-world comparative effectiveness or safety study these differences need to be understood and accounted for to produce valid results.

Identifying Anticipated Events of Future Clinical Trials by Leveraging Data from the Placebo Arms of Completed Trials.

BACKGROUND: An important component of a systematic strategy for safety surveillance is prospective identification of anticipated serious adverse events (SAEs). Developing a structured approach to identify anticipated events and estimating their incidence can help align the safety strategy and the safety surveillance efforts. METHODS: We developed a novel approach to identify anticipated events for a hypothetical randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in subjects with bipolar disorder using the adverse events reported in the placebo arm of trials from the ClinicalTrials.gov database. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for all trials on bipolar depression with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria and study duration as our hypothetical study. The frequencies of anticipated events in placebo arms were abstracted from each trial and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method. Meta-analysis with a random effects model was performed to obtain a summary estimate and 95% CI for the events identified in more than one trial. RESULTS: A total of 129 clinical trials were initially identified, and 18 were ultimately selected as they met all the selection criteria. There were 69 unique anticipated SAEs identified, and 13 out of 69 were reported in at least 2 clinical trials. The top 5 anticipated SAEs for our study were: (1) hospitalization, psychiatric symptom (3.57%); (2) suicidal behavior, overdose (3.57%), (3) cholecystitis (2.86%); (4) fall (2.86%); (5) road traffic accident, injury (2.86%). CONCLUSION: We successfully identified the anticipated events from registered trials that included a population similar to our trial. This method for identifying anticipated events could be applied to other disease areas.

How Confident Are We about Observational Findings in Healthcare: A Benchmark Study.

Healthcare professionals increasingly rely on observational healthcare data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, to estimate the causal effects of interventions. However, limited prior studies raise concerns about the real-world performance of the statistical and epidemiological methods that are used. We present the "OHDSI Methods Benchmark" that aims to evaluate the performance of effect estimation methods on real data. The benchmark comprises a gold standard, a set of metrics, and a set of open source software tools. The gold standard is a collection of real negative controls (drug-outcome pairs where no causal effect appears to exist) and synthetic positive controls (drug-outcome pairs that augment negative controls with simulated causal effects). We apply the benchmark using four large healthcare databases to evaluate methods commonly used in practice: the new-user cohort, self-controlled cohort, case-control, case-crossover, and self-controlled case series designs. The results confirm the concerns about these methods, showing that for most methods the operating characteristics deviate considerably from nominal levels. For example, in most contexts, only half of the 95% confidence intervals we calculated contain the corresponding true effect size. We previously developed an "empirical calibration" procedure to restore these characteristics and we also evaluate this procedure. While no one method dominates, self-controlled methods such as the empirically calibrated self-controlled case series perform well across a wide range of scenarios.

An Examination of State and Federal Opioid Analgesic and Continuing Education Policies: 2016-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid overdose deaths in the United States have climbed sharply over the past two decades. Simultaneously, increased awareness of inadequately treated chronic pain has resulted in increased opioid analgesic prescribing. The correlation between these two phenomena has led policymakers to posit that they are causally linked, and to implement policy changes supporting safe opioid prescribing. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of its Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested the opioid manufacturers responsible for implementing that program provide information regarding opioid policy changes from 2016 to 2018. FDA also requested a survey of state requirements for pain and opioid prescribing continuing education (CE), the number of prescribers affected by those requirements, the extent to which a REMS-compliant CE program would meet each state's requirements, and the number of relevant CE programs available. RESULTS: Results indicate that 527 federal and state opioid-related policies (statutes, rules/regulations, and guidelines) were approved during the 2016-2018 study period. While the largest number of these policies focused on prescription drug monitoring programs, 170 specifically imposed limits on opioid prescribing and an additional 35 specifically referred to, or incorporated, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opioid prescribing guideline. We also found that 46 states and the District of Columbia mandated some amount of pain or opioid prescribing CE for prescribers renewing their licenses. These mandates potentially affected as many as 1.7 million prescribers. In 69% of cases, a REMS-compliant CE program would fully meet the state mandates for various types of prescribers. CONCLUSION: The severity and complexity of the problems of pain management and opioid overdose have led to large-scale intervention by policymakers. Assessing the impact of these changes is difficult, at best, but will be necessary if interventions are to be refined to increase their effectiveness.

Oral Opioid Prescribing Trends in the United States, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective analysis of sequential cross-sectional data of opioid prescribing practices in patients with no prior history of opioid use. METHODS: Individuals filling an oral opioid prescription who had 1 year of prior observation were identified from four different administrative claims databases for the period between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018: IBM MarketScan® Commercial Database (CCAE), Multi-State Medicaid Database (MDCD), Medicare Supplemental Database (MDCR), and Optum©â€¯De-Identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. Outcomes included incidence of new opioid use and characteristics of patients' first opioid prescription, including dispensed morphine milligram equivalent (MME) per day, total MME dispensed, total MME ≥300, and days' supply of prescription for ≤3 or ≥30 days. RESULTS: There were 40,600,696 new opioid users identified. The incidence of new opioid use in the past 17 years ranged from 6% to 11% within the two commercially insured databases. Incidence decreased over time in MDCD and was consistently higher in MDCR. Total MME dispensed decreased in MDCD and increased in CCAE, with no major changes in the other databases. The proportion of patients receiving ≥30-day prescriptions decreased and the proportion of patients receiving ≤3-day prescriptions increased in MDCD, while ≥30-day prescriptions in the Optum database dramatically increased (low of 3.0% in 2003 to peak of 16.9% in 2017). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid prescribing practices varied across different populations of insured individuals during the past 17 years. The most substantial changes in opioid prescriptions over time have occurred in MDCD, with reductions in use across multiple metrics.