Comparing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) enrollment data death dates to the National Death Index (NDI).

PURPOSE: In the United States, the National Death Index (NDI) is the most complete source of death information, while epidemiologic studies with mortality outcomes often rely on U.S. Medicare data for outcome ascertainment. The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement of death information between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare enrolment data and NDI. METHODS: Using Medicare and NDI data from 1999 through 2016, we identified Medicare beneficiaries who were reported dead in the CMS Medicare enrolment database (EDB) and Common Medicare Environment (CME), linked these beneficiaries to the NDI using CMS Health Insurance Claim number, and compared death dates between the two data sources. To assess agreement between our data sources, we calculated kappa scores; where a kappa of 1 indicates perfect agreement and a kappa of 0 indicates agreement equivalent to chance. We also examined CMS to NDI linkage and death date matching for stability over time. RESULTS: Of the 36 785 640, Medicare beneficiaries reported dead in CMS enrollment data from 1999 to 2016, 97.5% were linked to the NDI. A kappa score of 0.98 showed a near perfect agreement between NDI and CMS reported deaths. The percentage of linked cases exactly matching on death dates increased from 94.8% in 1999 to 99.4% in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest strong concordance between death dates as recorded by CMS enrollment data and the NDI in the entire Medicare population.

Near real-time surveillance of safety outcomes in US COVID-19 vaccine recipients aged 12 to 64 years.

BACKGROUND: Active monitoring of safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical to understand vaccine safety and can provide early detection of rare outcomes not identified in pre-licensure trials. We present findings from an early warning rapid surveillance system in three large commercial insurance databases including more than 16 million vaccinated individuals. METHODS: We evaluated 17 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination among individuals aged 12-64 years in Optum, HealthCore, and CVS Health databases from December 11, 2020, through January 22, 2022, January 7, 2022, and December 31, 2021, respectively. We conducted biweekly or monthly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination. FINDINGS: Among 17 outcomes evaluated, 15 did not meet the threshold for statistical signal in any of the three databases. Myocarditis/pericarditis met the statistical threshold for a signal following BNT162b2 in two of three databases (RRs: 1.83-2.47). Anaphylaxis met the statistical threshold for a signal in all three databases following BNT162b2 vaccination (RRs: 4.48-10.86) and mRNA-1273 vaccination (RRs: 7.64-12.40). DISCUSSION: Consistent with published literature, our near-real time monitoring of 17 adverse outcomes following COVID-19 vaccinations identified signals for myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. The method is intended for early detection of safety signals, and results do not imply a causal effect. Results of this study should be interpreted in the context of the method's utility and limitations, and the validity of detected signals must be evaluated in fully adjusted epidemiologic studies.

Mortality Among Parkinson's Disease Patients Treated With Pimavanserin or Atypical Antipsychotics: An Observational Study in Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Pimavanserin, a serotonin 5-HT2 antagonist, is indicated for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. In premarketing trials in patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis, 11% of patients died during open-label pimavanserin treatment. Antipsychotics, which are used off-label in Parkinson's disease psychosis, increase mortality in dementia patients. The authors compared mortality with pimavanserin and atypical antipsychotics in a large database. METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with Parkinson's disease initiating pimavanserin (N=3,227) or atypical antipsychotics (N=18,442) from April 2016 to March 2019. All-cause mortality hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for pimavanserin compared with atypical antipsychotics, using segmented proportional hazards regression over 1-180 and 181+ days of treatment. Potential confounding was addressed through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: Pimavanserin users had a mean age of approximately 78 years, and 45% were female. Before IPTW, some comorbidities were more prevalent in atypical antipsychotic users; after IPTW, comorbidities were well balanced between groups. In the first 180 days of treatment, mortality was approximately 35% lower with pimavanserin than with atypical antipsychotics (hazard ratio=0.65, 95% CI=0.53, 0.79), with approximately one excess death per 30 atypical antipsychotic-treated patients; however, during treatment beyond 180 days, there was no additional mortality advantage with pimavanserin (hazard ratio=1.05, 95% CI=0.82, 1.33). Pimavanserin showed no mortality advantage in nursing home patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pimavanserin use was associated with lower mortality than atypical antipsychotic use during the first 180 days of treatment, but only in community-dwelling patients, not nursing home residents.

Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in the USA: a cohort study in claims databases.

BACKGROUND: Several passive surveillance systems reported increased risks of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, especially in young men. We used active surveillance from large health-care databases to quantify and enable the direct comparison of the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccinations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, examining the primary outcome of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, identified using the International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, occurring 1-7 days post-vaccination, evaluated in COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees aged 18-64 years using health plan claims databases in the USA. Observed (O) incidence rates were compared with expected (E) incidence rates estimated from historical cohorts by each database. We used multivariate Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rates, specific to each brand of vaccine, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2. We used meta-analyses to pool the adjusted incidence rates and IRRs across databases. FINDINGS: A total of 411 myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, events were observed among 15 148 369 people aged 18-64 years who received 16 912 716 doses of BNT162b2 and 10 631 554 doses of mRNA-1273. Among men aged 18-25 years, the pooled incidence rate was highest after the second dose, at 1·71 (95% CI 1·31 to 2·23) per 100 000 person-days for BNT162b2 and 2·17 (1·55 to 3·04) per 100 000 person-days for mRNA-1273. The pooled IRR in the head-to-head comparison of the two mRNA vaccines was 1·43 (95% CI 0·88 to 2·34), with an excess risk of 27·80 per million doses (-21·88 to 77·48) in mRNA-1273 recipients compared with BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: An increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis was observed after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and was highest in men aged 18-25 years after a second dose of the vaccine. However, the incidence was rare. These results do not indicate a statistically significant risk difference between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, but it should not be ruled out that a difference might exist. Our study results, along with the benefit-risk profile, continue to support vaccination using either of the two mRNA vaccines. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

Risk of serious spinal adverse events associated with epidural corticosteroid injections in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) are widely performed and have an unquantified risk of serious spinal adverse events (SSAEs). We sought to determine the rate of SSAEs following ESI and to compare the rates by spinal level, injection approach and corticosteroid formulation. METHODS: We included patients enrolled in Medicare parts A and B who had an ESI between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2015. We identified potential cases as patients with spine-related diagnoses within 3 days after the first eligible ESI. Event categorization as probable, possible or non-case was based on review of medical records. The rates of probable and possible cases were expressed per 1 000 000 patients overall, and by spinal level, injection approach and corticosteroid formulation. A score test was used to compare these rates. RESULTS: We identified 1 355 957 eligible ESIs during the study period. Of the 110 potential cases, 43 were selected for medical record review and 11 were categorized as probable, yielding a rate of 8.1 per 1 000 000 patients (95% CI 4.5 to 14.5). Risk of SSAEs was statistically higher with cervical/thoracic injections (29.4, 95% CI 12.5 to 68.8) compared with lumbar/sacral injections (5.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 11.0) (p value 0.001). Event rates for lumbar/sacral non-transforaminal injections was 8.8 (95% CI 4.0 to 19.1). Event rates for particulate (7.5, 95% CI 3.9 to 14.2) and non-particulate formulations (13.1, 95% CI 3.6 to 47.9) appeared similar (p value 0.47). CONCLUSION: Between 2009 and 2015, rates of SSAEs following ESI in the Medicare population were low. Patients receiving cervical/thoracic ESIs were at higher risk of SSAE than those receiving lumbar/sacral ESIs. Event rates were similar for each corticosteroid formulation.

Comparison of propensity score methods for pre-specified subgroup analysis with survival data.

Examining medical products' benefits and risks in different population subsets is often necessary for informing public health decisions. In observational cohort studies, safety analyses by pre-specified subgroup can be powered, and are informative about different population subsets' risks if the study designs or analyses adequately control for confounding. However, few guidelines exist on how to simultaneously control for confounding and conduct subgroup analyses. In this simulation study, we evaluated the performance, in terms of bias, efficiency and coverage, of six propensity score methods in 24 scenarios by estimating subgroup-specific hazard ratios of average treatment effect in the treated with Cox regression models. The subgroup analysis methods control for confounding either by propensity score matching or by inverse probability treatment weighting. These methods vary as to whether they subset information or borrow it across subgroups to estimate the propensity score. Simulation scenarios varied by size of subgroup, strength of association of subgroup with exposure, strength of association of subgroup with outcome (simulated survival), and outcome incidence. Results indicated that subsetting the data by the subgrouping variable, to estimate the propensity score and hazard ratio, has the smallest bias, far exceeding any penalty in precision. Moreover, weighting methods pay a heavier price in bias than do matching methods when the propensity score model is misspecified and the subgrouping variable is a strong confounder.