Safety of Intravenous Pantoprazole Sodium in Pediatric Patients Aged 1 Month to < 1 Year: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence rates (IR) of prespecified outcomes of interest in pediatric patients (1 month to < 1 year) treated with intravenous (IV) pantoprazole using Optum's longitudinal electronic health records database (Optum Market Clarity) from the United States (US). METHODS: This real-world, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01 January 2007 to 31 December 2020 in patients who received IV pantoprazole. Premature patients and those weighing < 2.36 kg were excluded. Patients were categorized based on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE) into: Subgroup 1 (GERD and EE), Subgroup 2 (GERD and no EE), and Subgroup 3 (absence of GERD and EE). Overall IRs (per 1000 person-years [PY]) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of outcomes were estimated (overall and subgroups) and stratified by duration of IV pantoprazole treatment (< 4 days versus ≥ 4 days). RESULTS: Of 1879 eligible patients, none were identified in Subgroup 1; 851 (45.3%) and 1028 (54.7%) patients were identified in Subgroups 2 and 3, respectively. IRs of outcomes of interest ranged from 0.0 to 742.8 per 1000 PY. IRs were highest for vomiting (742.80), diarrhea (377.77), abdominal distension (214.31), hyponatremia (204.99), and hypokalemia (203.49). IRs were comparable between Subgroups 2 and 3. For most outcomes, IRs were higher among patients treated with IV pantoprazole for ≥ 4 days versus those treated for < 4 days. CONCLUSION: These results are consistent with the known safety profile of pantoprazole and emphasize the utility of using real-world data from pediatric populations for assessment of safety outcomes.

Emulation of Randomized Clinical Trials With Nonrandomized Database Analyses: Results of 32 Clinical Trials.

Importance: Nonrandomized studies using insurance claims databases can be analyzed to produce real-world evidence on the effectiveness of medical products. Given the lack of baseline randomization and measurement issues, concerns exist about whether such studies produce unbiased treatment effect estimates. Objective: To emulate the design of 30 completed and 2 ongoing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medications with database studies using observational analogues of the RCT design parameters (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, time [PICOT]) and to quantify agreement in RCT-database study pairs. Design, Setting, and Participants: New-user cohort studies with propensity score matching using 3 US claims databases (Optum Clinformatics, MarketScan, and Medicare). Inclusion-exclusion criteria for each database study were prespecified to emulate the corresponding RCT. RCTs were explicitly selected based on feasibility, including power, key confounders, and end points more likely to be emulated with real-world data. All 32 protocols were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before conducting analyses. Emulations were conducted from 2017 through 2022. Exposures: Therapies for multiple clinical conditions were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Database study emulations focused on the primary outcome of the corresponding RCT. Findings of database studies were compared with RCTs using predefined metrics, including Pearson correlation coefficients and binary metrics based on statistical significance agreement, estimate agreement, and standardized difference. Results: In these highly selected RCTs, the overall observed agreement between the RCT and the database emulation results was a Pearson correlation of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.64-0.91), with 75% meeting statistical significance, 66% estimate agreement, and 75% standardized difference agreement. In a post hoc analysis limited to 16 RCTs with closer emulation of trial design and measurements, concordance was higher (Pearson r, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97; 94% meeting statistical significance, 88% estimate agreement, 88% standardized difference agreement). Weaker concordance occurred among 16 RCTs for which close emulation of certain design elements that define the research question (PICOT) with data from insurance claims was not possible (Pearson r, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.00-0.83; 56% meeting statistical significance, 50% estimate agreement, 69% standardized difference agreement). Conclusions and Relevance: Real-world evidence studies can reach similar conclusions as RCTs when design and measurements can be closely emulated, but this may be difficult to achieve. Concordance in results varied depending on the agreement metric. Emulation differences, chance, and residual confounding can contribute to divergence in results and are difficult to disentangle.

Risk of malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer in rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating methotrexate versus hydroxychloroquine: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the incidence rate of skin cancer associated with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine in older adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: RA patients aged ≥65 years who initiated methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine as their first disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The primary outcome was new occurrence of any skin cancer (i.e. malignant melanoma or non-melanoma skin cancer; NMSC) based on validated algorithms (positive predictive value >83%). Secondary outcomes were malignant melanoma, NMSC, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). We estimated the incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) for each outcome in the 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine groups. RESULTS: We included 24,577 PS-matched pairs of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine initiators. Compared with hydroxychloroquine (IR 25.20/1,000 person-years), methotrexate initiators (IR 26.21/1,000 person-years) had a similar risk of any skin cancer [HR 1.03 -(95%CI 0.92, 1.14)] over a mean follow-up of 388 days. The HR (95%CI) associated with methotrexate was 1.39 (0.87, 2.21) for malignant melanoma, 1.01(0.90, 1.12) for NMSC, 1.37 (1.13, 1.66) for BCC, and 0.79 (0.63, 0.99) for SCC compared with hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of older RA patients initiating methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine as their first DMARD, we found no difference in the risk of skin cancer including malignant melanoma and NMSC. However, for specific components of NMSC, methotrexate initiators had higher risk of BCC but lower risk of SCC compared with hydroxychloroquine initiators.

The Aetion Coalition to Advance Real-World Evidence through Randomized Controlled Trial Emulation Initiative: Oncology.

Legislative and technological advancements over the past decade have given rise to the proliferation of healthcare data generated from routine clinical practice, often referred to as real-world data (RWD). These data have piqued the interest of healthcare stakeholders due to their potential utility in generating evidence to support clinical and regulatory decision making. In the oncology setting, studies leveraging RWD offer distinct advantages that are complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They also permit the conduct of investigations that may not be possible through prospective designs due to ethics or feasibility. Despite its promise, the use of RWD for the generation of clinical evidence remains controversial due to concerns of unmeasured confounding and other sources of bias that must be carefully addressed in the study design and analysis. To facilitate a better understanding of when RWD can provide reliable conclusions on drug effectiveness, we seek to conduct 10 RWD-based studies that emulate RCTs in oncology using a systematic, protocol-driven approach described herein. Results of this investigation will help inform clinical, scientific, and regulatory stakeholders on the applications of RWD in the context of product labeling expansion, drug safety, and comparative effectiveness in oncology.

Association between household composition and severe COVID-19 outcomes in older people by ethnicity: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020-31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020-31 January 2021). RESULTS: Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38-1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48-2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30-1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18-1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99-2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics.

Accuracy of identifying diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic kidney disease in administrative claims data.

BACKGROUND: Prior validation studies of claims-based definitions of chronic kidney disease (CKD) using ICD-9 codes reported overall low sensitivity, high specificity, and variable but reasonable PPV. No studies to date have evaluated the accuracy of ICD-10 codes to identify a US patient population with CKD. METHODS: We assessed the accuracy of claims-based algorithms to identify adults with CKD Stages 3-5 compared with laboratory values in a subset (~40%) of a US commercial insurance claims database (Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database). We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of one or two ICD-9 (2012-2014) or ICD-10 (2016-2018) codes for CKD compared with a lab-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) occurring within prespecified windows (±90 days, ±180 days, ±365 days) of the ICD-based CKD code(s). RESULTS: The study population ranged between 104 774 and 161 305 patients (ICD-9 cohorts) and between 285 520 and 373 220 patients (ICD-10 cohorts). The mean age was 74.4 years (ICD-9) and 75.6 years (ICD-10) and the median eGFR was 48 ml/min/1.73 m2 . The algorithm of two CKD codes compared with a lab value ±90 days of the first code achieved the highest PPV (PPV 86.36% [ICD-9] and 86.07% [ICD-10]). Overall, ICD-10 based codes had comparable PPVs to ICD-9 based codes and all ICD-10 based algorithms had PPVs >80%. The algorithm of one CKD code compared with laboratory value ±180 days maintained the PPV above 80% but still retained a large number of patients (PPV 80.32% [ICD-9] and 81.56% [ICD-10]). CONCLUSION: An ICD-10-based definition of CKD identified with sufficient accuracy a patient population with CKD Stages 3-5. Our findings suggest that claims databases could be used for future real-world research studies in patients with CKD Stages 3-5.

Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings.

AIMS: Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists and other generalist specialists in Boston (USA) and Australia. Coding and analysis were performed inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas: physicians' awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming and sharing of information with patients. RESULTS: Uncertainty, trust and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the "clinical grapevine" for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients' health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator's post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs. CONCLUSION: Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance and accessibility, and address physicians' needs in communicating risk to patients.

Association of first trimester prescription opioid use with congenital malformations in the offspring: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of first trimester exposure to prescription opioids for major congenital malformations, previously reported to be associated with such exposure. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide sample of publicly and commercially insured pregnant women linked to their liveborn infants, nested in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX, 2000-14) and the MarketScan Research Database (MarketScan, 2003-15). PARTICIPANTS: 1 602 580 publicly insured (MAX) and 1 177 676 commercially insured (MarketScan) pregnant women with eligibility from at least three months before pregnancy to one month after delivery; infants with eligibility for at least three months after birth. INTERVENTIONS: Use of prescription opioids was ascertained by requiring two or more dispensations of any opioid during the first trimester. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Major malformations overall, cardiac malformations overall, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/patent foramen ovale, neural tube defect, clubfoot, and oral cleft, defined based on validated algorithms. Propensity score stratification was used to adjust for potential confounders and/or proxies for confounders. Estimates from each database were combined using meta-analysis. RESULTS: 70 447 (4.4%) of 1 602 580 publicly insured and 12 454 (1.1%) of 1 177 676 commercially insured pregnant women had two or more dispensations of an opioid during the first trimester. Absolute risk of malformations overall was 41.0 (95% confidence interval 39.5 to 42.5) per 1000 pregnancies exposed to opioids versus 32.0 (31.7 to 32.3) per 1000 unexposed pregnancies in the MAX cohort, and 42.6 (39.0 to 46.1) and 37.3 (37.0 to 37.7) per 1000, respectively, in the MarketScan cohort. Pooled unadjusted relative risk estimates were raised for all outcomes but shifted substantially toward the null after adjustment; for malformations overall (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.10), cardiovascular malformations (1.09, 1.00 to 1.18), ventricular septal defect (1.07, 0.95 to 1.21), atrial septal defect/patent foramen ovale (1.04, 0.88 to 1.24), neural tube defect (0.82, 0.53 to 1.27), and clubfoot (1.06, 0.88 to 1.28). The relative risk for oral clefts remained raised after adjustment (1.21, 0.98 to 1.50), with a higher risk of cleft palate (1.62, 1.23 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioids used in early pregnancy are not associated with a substantial increase in risk for most of the malformation types considered, although a small increase in the risk of oral clefts associated with their use is possible.

Emulating Randomized Clinical Trials With Nonrandomized Real-World Evidence Studies: First Results From the RCT DUPLICATE Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Regulators are evaluating the use of noninterventional real-world evidence (RWE) studies to assess the effectiveness of medical products. The RCT DUPLICATE initiative (Randomized, Controlled Trials Duplicated Using Prospective Longitudinal Insurance Claims: Applying Techniques of Epidemiology) uses a structured process to design RWE studies emulating randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and compare results. We report findings of the first 10 trial emulations, evaluating cardiovascular outcomes of antidiabetic or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: We selected 3 active-controlled and 7 placebo-controlled RCTs for replication. Using patient-level claims data from US commercial and Medicare payers, we implemented inclusion and exclusion criteria, selected primary end points, and comparator populations to emulate those of each corresponding RCT. Within the trial-mimicking populations, we conducted propensity score matching to control for >120 preexposure confounders. All study measures were prospectively defined and protocols registered before hazard ratios and 95% CIs were computed. Success criteria for the primary analysis were prespecified for each replication. RESULTS: Despite attempts to emulate RCT design as closely as possible, differences between the RCT and corresponding RWE study populations remained. The regulatory conclusions were equivalent in 6 of 10. The RWE emulations achieved a hazard ratio estimate that was within the 95% CI from the corresponding RCT in 8 of 10 studies. In 9 of 10, either the regulatory or estimate agreement success criteria were fulfilled. The largest differences in effect estimates were found for RCTs where second-generation sulfonylureas were used as a proxy for placebo regarding cardiovascular effects. Nine of 10 replications had a standardized difference between effect estimates of <2, which suggests differences within expected random variation. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between RCT and RWE findings varies depending on which agreement metric is used. Interim findings indicate that selection of active comparator therapies with similar indications and use patterns enhances the validity of RWE. Even in the context of active comparators, concordance between RCT and RWE findings is not guaranteed, partially because trials are not emulated exactly. More trial emulations are needed to understand how often and in what contexts RWE findings match RCTs. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03936049, NCT04215523, NCT04215536, NCT03936010, NCT03936036, NCT03936062, NCT03936023, NCT03648424, NCT04237935, NCT04237922.

Risk of admission to hospital for serious infection after initiating tofacitinib versus biologic DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multidatabase cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of serious infection is a major concern when prescribing a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for rheumatoid arthritis. Little evidence exists with regard to serious infection risk associated with tofacitinib, a targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD, compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. We compared the risk of serious infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating tofacitinib versus one of the seven bDMARDs. METHODS: In this multidatabase cohort study, we identified eight mutually exclusive groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating tofacitinib or one of the seven bDMARDs using US public (Medicare 20012-15) and private (Optum Clinformatics 2012-18 and IBM MarketScan 2012-17) health insurance programmes. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had one inpatient visit or two or more outpatient visits (7-365 days apart) for rheumatoid arthritis using International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of admission to hospital for serious infection including bacterial, viral, or opportunistic infection based on the inpatient principal diagnosis code. Secondary outcomes were individual types of serious infections and herpes zoster. We adjusted for more than 60 potential confounders through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting in each database. Database-specific adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were combined using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We identified 130 718 patients with rheumatoid arthritis across the three databases. During 100 790 person-years of follow-up, 3140 serious infections occurred (crude incidence rate per 100 person-years 3·12, 95% CI 3·01-3·23). The aHR for serious infection associated with tofacitinib was 1·41 (95% CI 1·15-1·73) versus etanercept, 1·20 (0·97-1·49) versus abatacept, 1·23 (0·94-1·62) versus golimumab, and 1·17 (0·89-1·53) versus tocilizumab. The serious infection risk with tofacitinib was similar to adalimumab (1·06, 0·87-1·30) and certolizumab (1·02, 0·80-1·29), and was lower than infliximab (0·81, 0·65-1·00). Tofacitinib was associated with a 2-fold higher risk of herpes zoster versus all bDMARDs. INTERPRETATION: This study found potential differences between tofacitinib and several bDMARDs in the risk of admission to hospital for serious infection, as well as herpes zoster, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. These results contribute to the evolving understanding of the overall risk-benefit profile of tofacitinib. FUNDING: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, MA, USA.