Updated core competencies in pharmacoepidemiology to inform contemporary curricula and training for academia, government, and industry.

PURPOSE: The first paper to specify the core content of pharmacoepidemiology as a profession was published by an ISPE (International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology) workgroup in 2012 (Jones JK et al. PDS 2012; 21[7]:677-689). Due to the broader and evolving scope of pharmacoepidemiology, ISPE considers it important to proactively identify, update and expand the list of core competencies to inform curricula of education programs; thus, better positioning pharmacoepidemiologists across academic, government (including regulatory), and industry positions. The aim of this project was to update the list of core competencies in pharmacoepidemiology. METHODS: To ensure applicability of findings to multiple areas, a working group was established consisting of ISPE members with positions in academia, industry, government, and other settings. All competencies outlined by Jones et al. were extracted from the initial manuscript and presented to the working group for review. Expert-based judgments were collated and used to identify consensus. It was noted that some competencies could contribute to multiple groups and could be directly or indirectly related to a group. RESULTS: Five core domains were proposed: (1) Epidemiology, (2) Clinical Pharmacology, (3) Regulatory Science, (4) Statistics and data science, and (5) Communication and other professional skills. In total, 55 individual competencies were proposed, of which 25 were new competencies. No competencies from the original work were dropped but aggregation or amendments were made where considered necessary. CONCLUSIONS: While many core competencies in pharmacoepidemiology have remained the same over the past 10 years, there have also been several updates to reflect new and emerging concepts in the field.

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.

Design and analysis choices for safety surveillance evaluations need to be tuned to the specifics of the hypothesized drug-outcome association.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed the results of the Observational Medical Outcomes Research Partnership (OMOP) 2010 Experiment in hopes of finding examples where apparently well-designed drug studies repeatedly produce anomalous findings. OMOP had applied thousands of designs and design parameters to 53 drug-outcome pairs across 10 electronic data resources. Our intent was to use this repository to elucidate some sources of error in observational studies. METHOD: From the 2010 OMOP Experiment, we sought drug-outcome-method combinations (DOMCs) that met consensus design criteria, yet repeatedly produced results contrary to expectation. We set aside DOMCs for which we could not agree on the suitability of the designs, then selected for an in-depth scrutiny one drug-outcome pair analyzed by a seemingly plausible methodological approach, whose results consistently disagreed with the a priori expectation. RESULTS: The OMOP "all-by-all" assessment of possible DOMCs yielded many combinations that would not be chosen by researchers as actual study options. Among those that passed a first level of scrutiny, two of seven drug-outcome pairs for which there were plausible research designs had anomalous results. The use of benzodiazepines was unexpectedly associated with acute renal failure and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We chose the latter as an example for in-depth study. The factitious appearance of a bleeding risk may have been partly driven by an excess of procedures on the first day of treatment. A risk window definition that excluded the first day largely removed the spurious association. CONCLUSION: One cause of reproducible "error" may be repeated failure to tie design choices closely enough to the research question at hand. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evaluating the validity of clinical codes to identify cataract and glaucoma in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine (i) the positive predictive value (PPV) of an algorithm using clinical codes to identify incident glaucoma and cataract events in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and (ii) the ability to capture the correct timing of these clinical events. METHODS: A total of 21,339 and 5349 potential cataract and glaucoma cases, respectively, were identified in CPRD between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2010. Questionnaires were sent to the general practitioners (GP) of 1169 (5.5%) cataract and 1163 (21.7%) glaucoma cases for validation. GPs were asked to verify the diagnosis and the timing of the diagnosis and to provide other supporting information. RESULTS: A total of 986 (84.3%) valid cataract questionnaires and 863 (74.2%) glaucoma questionnaires were completed. 92.1% and 92.4% of these used information beyond EMR to verify the diagnosis. Cataract and glaucoma diagnoses were confirmed in the large majority of the cases. The PPV (95% CI) of the cataract and glaucoma Read code algorithm were 92.0% (90.3-93.7%) and 84.1% (81.7-86.6%), respectively. However, timing of diagnosis was incorrect for a substantial proportion of the cases (20.3% and 32.8% of the cataract and glaucoma cases, respectively) among whom 30.4% and 49.2% had discrepancies in diagnosis timing greater than 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: High PPV suggests that the algorithms based on the clinical Read codes are sufficient to identify the cataract and glaucoma cases in CPRD. However, these codes alone may not be able to accurately identify the timing of the diagnosis of these eye disorders. Ltd.

Identification of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in electronic health record databases.

BACKGROUND: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) carry a high mortality risk. While identifying clinical and genetic risk factors for these conditions has been hindered by their rarity, large electronic health databases hold promise for identifying large numbers of cases for study, especially with the introduction in 2008 of ICD-9 codes more specific for these conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to estimate the validity of ICD-9 codes for ascertaining SJS/TEN in 12 collaborating research units in the USA, covering almost 60 million lives. METHODS: From the electronic databases at each site, we ascertained potential cases of SJS/TEN using ICD-9 codes. At five sites, a subset of medical records was abstracted and standardized criteria applied by board-certified dermatologists to adjudicate diagnoses. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with validated SJS/TEN cases. RESULTS: A total of 56 591 potential cases of SJS/TEN were identified. A subset of 276 charts was selected for adjudication and 39 (of the 276) were confirmed as SJS/TEN. Patients with the ICD-9 codes introduced after 2008 were more likely to be confirmed as cases (OR 3.32; 95%CI 0.82, 13.47) than those identified in earlier years. Likelihood of case status increased with length of hospitalization. Applying the probability of case status to the 56 591 potential cases, we estimated 475-875 to be valid SJS/TEN cases. CONCLUSION: Newer ICD-9 codes, along with length of hospitalization, identified patients with a high likelihood of SJS/TEN. This is important for identification of subjects for future pharmacogenomics studies.

Cardiovascular and mortality risks in Parkinson's disease patients treated with entacapone.

The controlled trial Stalevo Reduction in Dyskinesia Evaluation in Parkinson's Disease (STRIDE-PD) reported an unexpected increase in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with entacapone use in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The authors investigated whether entacapone increased cardiovascular and mortality risk compared with the use of a non-levodopa dopamine agonist (DA) or a selective monoamine oxidase type-B inhibitor (MAOBI). Using national Medicare data, a new-user cohort of elderly patients with PD treated with entacapone was propensity score (PS) matched with new users of either DA or MAOBI. The PS model included variables for sociodemographics, cardiovascular disease, medications, prior PD treatment, and comorbidities. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare on-therapy time to event for AMI, stroke, and death with DA-MAOBI as a reference. Study cohorts included 8681 entacapone-treated and 17,362 DA-MAOBI-treated initators who were followed for 2569 and 5385 person-years, respectively. Cohorts were closely balanced for all covariates. During follow-up, there were 106 AMIs, 89 strokes, and 201 deaths. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with entacapone use was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.57-1.30) for AMI, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.35) for stroke, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58-1.07) for death. The risk was unchanged for treatment of ≤ 6 months' and>6 months' duration and was unaffected by adjustment for time-varying levodopa use during follow-up. The risk of each endpoint was not differentially affected by diabetes, ischemic heart disease, or kidney failure status. However, the risk of stroke was modified by the presence (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 0.98-4.45) or absence (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95) of advanced PD-related morbidities (P value for interaction=0.004). Entacapone was not associated with an increased risk of AMI, stroke, or death in elderly patients with PD.

Concomitant use of isotretinoin and contraceptives before and after iPledge in the United States.

PURPOSE: The major concern associated with isotretinoin treatment is its high teratogenic potential. Therefore, ensuring use of contraception while on therapy is an important strategy for at-risk patients and has been emphasized in all risk management programs. iPledge, the latest and most rigorous isotretinoin program, requires, among other stipulations, monthly assessments of contraceptive use for patients undergoing isotretinoin treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate isotretinoin usage patterns and assess concomitant use of isotretinoin and contraceptives before and after iPledge. METHODS: Female patients aged 13-45 years with a new prescription for isotretinoin products during 2004-2008 were identified in the IMS Health longitudinal prescription claims database. Monthly concomitant use of isotretinoin and contraceptives was estimated. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data was used to assess changes in monthly proportion of concomitant use in the 24 months preceding versus following iPledge implementation. RESULTS: The number of isotretinoin prescriptions decreased after iPledge implementation. A small but significant increase in monthly proportion of patients concomitantly using isotretinoin and contraceptive therapies was observed immediately after iPledge implementation (1.3%, p-value = 0.02), particularly among younger patients (2.5%, p-value < 0.01). No changes in the proportion of concomitancy over time (i.e. slope) between the periods before and after iPledge implementation were observed. CONCLUSION: The findings of this pharmacy prescription claims-based study suggest a small increase in concomitant use of isotretinoin and contraceptives coincident with the time of implementation of iPledge, particularly among younger women. Published 2013. This article is a U. S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Validation of an algorithm to estimate gestational age in electronic health plan databases.

PURPOSE: To validate an algorithm that uses delivery date and diagnosis codes to define gestational age at birth in electronic health plan databases. METHODS: Using data from 225,384 live born deliveries to women aged 15-45 years in 2001-2007 within eight of the 11 health plans participating in the Medication Exposure in Pregnancy Risk Evaluation Program, we compared (1) the algorithm-derived gestational age versus the "gold-standard" gestational age obtained from the infant birth certificate file and (2) the prenatal exposure status of two antidepressants (fluoxetine and sertraline) and two antibiotics (amoxicillin and azithromycin) as determined by the algorithm-derived versus the gold-standard gestational age. RESULTS: The mean algorithm-derived gestational age at birth was lower than the mean obtained from the birth certificate file among singleton deliveries (267.9 vs 273.5 days) but not among multiple-gestation deliveries (253.9 vs 252.6 days). The algorithm-derived prenatal exposure to the antidepressants had a sensitivity and a positive predictive value of ≥95%, and a specificity and a negative predictive value of almost 100%. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were both ≥90%, and specificity and negative predictive value were both >99% for the antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: A gestational age algorithm based upon electronic health plan data correctly classified medication exposure status in most live born deliveries, but trimester-specific misclassification may be higher for drugs typically used for short durations.

Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment.

BACKGROUND: Due to the sparse nature of serious drug-related adverse events (AEs), meta-analyses combining data from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate drug safety issues are increasingly being conducted and published, influencing clinical and regulatory decision making. Evaluation of meta-analyses involves the assessment of both the individual constituent trials and the approaches used to combine them. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting framework is designed to enhance the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, PRISMA may not cover all critical elements useful in the evaluation of meta-analyses with a focus on drug safety particularly in the regulatory-public health setting. PURPOSE: This work was conducted to (1) evaluate the adherence of a sample of published drug safety-focused meta-analyses to the PRISMA reporting framework, (2) identify gaps in this framework based on key aspects pertinent to drug safety, and (3) stimulate the development and validation of a more comprehensive reporting tool that incorporates elements unique to drug safety evaluation. METHODS: We selected a sample of meta-analyses of RCTs based on review of abstracts from high-impact journals as well as top medical specialty journals between 2009 and 2011. We developed a preliminary reporting framework based on PRISMA with specific additional reporting elements critical for the evaluation of drug safety meta-analyses of RCTs. The reporting of pertinent elements in each meta-analysis was reviewed independently by two authors; discrepancies in the independent evaluations were resolved through discussions between the two authors. RESULTS: A total of 27 meta-analyses, 12 from highest impact journals, 13 from specialty medical journals, and 2 from Cochrane reviews, were identified and evaluated. The great majority (>85%) of PRISMA elements were addressed in more than half of the meta-analyses reviewed. However, the majority of meta-analyses (>60%) did not address most (>80%) of the additional reporting elements critical for the evaluation of drug safety. Some of these elements were not addressed in any of the reviewed meta-analyses. LIMITATIONS: This review included a sample of meta-analyses, with a focus on drug safety, recently published in high-impact journals; therefore, we may have underestimated the extent of the reporting problem across all meta-analyses of drug safety. Furthermore, temporal trends in reporting could not be evaluated in this review because of the short time interval selected. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of PRISMA elements were addressed by most studies reviewed, the majority of studies did not address most of the additional safety-related elements. These findings highlight the need for the development and validation of a drug safety reporting framework and the importance of the current initiative by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) to create a guidance document for drug safety information synthesis/meta-analysis, which may improve reporting, conduct, and evaluation of meta-analyses of drug safety and inform clinical and regulatory decision making.

Prevalence and trends in the use of antipsychotic medications during pregnancy in the U.S., 2001-2007: a population-based study of 585,615 deliveries.

This study aims to estimate the prevalence of and temporal trends in prenatal antipsychotic medication use within a cohort of pregnant women in the U.S. We identified live born deliveries to women aged 15-45 years in 2001-2007 from 11 U.S. health plans participating in the Medication Exposure in Pregnancy Risk Evaluation Program. We ascertained prenatal exposure to antipsychotics from health plan pharmacy dispensing files, gestational age from linked infant birth certificate files, and ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes from health plan claims files. We calculated the prevalence of prenatal use of atypical and typical antipsychotics according to year of delivery, trimester of pregnancy, and mental health diagnosis. Among 585,615 qualifying deliveries, 4,223 (0.72%) were to women who received an atypical antipsychotic and 548 (0.09%) were to women receiving a typical antipsychotic any time from 60 days before pregnancy through delivery. There was a 2.5-fold increase in atypical antipsychotic use during the study period, from 0.33% (95% confidence interval: 0.29%, 0.37%) in 2001 to 0.82% (0.76%, 0.88%) in 2007, while the use of typical antipsychotics remained stable. Depression was the most common mental health diagnosis among deliveries to women with atypical antipsychotic use (63%), followed by bipolar disorder (43%) and schizophrenia (13%). The number and proportion of pregnancies exposed to atypical antipsychotics has increased dramatically in recent years. Studies are needed to examine the comparative safety and effectiveness of these medications relative to other therapeutic options in pregnancy.

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.

Trends in the use of antiepileptic drugs among pregnant women in the US, 2001-2007: a medication exposure in pregnancy risk evaluation program study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the extent of antiepileptic drug (AED) use in pregnancy, particularly for newer agents. Our objective was to assess whether AED use has increased among pregnant women in the US, 2001-2007. METHODS: We analysed data from the Medication Exposure in Pregnancy Risk Evaluation Program (MEPREP) database, 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2007. We identified liveborn deliveries among women, aged 15-45 years on delivery date, who were members of MEPREP health plans (n=585615 deliveries). Pregnancy exposure to AEDs, determined through outpatient pharmacy dispensing files. Older AEDs were available for clinical use before 1993; other agents were considered newer AEDs. Information on sociodemographic and medical/reproductive factors was obtained from linked birth certificate files. Maternal diagnoses were identified based on ICD-9 codes. RESULTS: Prevalence of AED use during pregnancy increased between 2001 (15.7 per 1000 deliveries) and 2007 (21.9 per 1000 deliveries), driven primarily by a fivefold increase in the use of newer AEDs. Thirteen per cent of AED-exposed deliveries involved a combination of two or more AEDs. Psychiatric disorders were the most prevalent diagnoses, followed by epileptic and pain disorders, among AED users regardless of AED type, year of conception or gestational period. CONCLUSIONS: AED use during pregnancy increased between 2001 and 2007, driven by a fivefold increase in the use of newer AEDs. Nearly one in eight AED-exposed deliveries involved the concomitant use of more than one AED. Additional investigations of the reproductive safety of newer AEDs may be needed.

Secondary use of randomized controlled trials to evaluate drug safety: a review of methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often positioned at the top of evidence hierarchies. Meta-analyses of RCTs aim to integrate the state of knowledge on a given scientific question, particularly for rare drug-related outcomes. However, although RCTs are valuable tools in our armamentarium, they are rarely designed to evaluate drug safety and are thus susceptible to limitations that may hamper the ability of both RCTs and meta-analyses to fully characterize the safety profiles of drugs. Their potential limitations might be exacerbated in the study of rare outcomes, often encountered in drug safety assessment, when even minor deviations from the intended randomization could impact the stability of the risk estimates. PURPOSE: This article considers the methodological caveats of both RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs pertinent to the study of drug-related harms. It is intended to stimulate discussion about the impact of these caveats on interpreting findings of RCTs and meta-analyses for drug safety, which would foster more robust, critical evaluations, and thus enhance clinical and regulatory decision-making. METHODS: Pertinent issues that can influence the interpretation of drug-related harms discussed in this article were based on authors' expertise and review of the literature. RESULTS: Investigators and clinicians should be cognizant of the potential limitations of the secondary use of RCTs and meta-analyses in the assessment of drug-related harms and, when applicable, should consider potential remedies to overcome these limitations. LIMITATIONS: Only few practical examples are included in the article due to the fact that many of the discussed caveats are not examined and/or reported in many publications. In addition, the confidential nature of data reviewed at a regulatory agency forestalls an in depth discussion of examples pertaining to specific drugs. Furthermore, our ability to quantify the extent of encountering, or the actual impact of, the caveats addressed in this review on the RCTs findings is limited. It is worth noting that the mere encounter of a given caveat does not mean that it will obviate the utility of drug safety information from a given trial. The extent of its impact is expected to vary based on the specifics of the trial, the drugs studied, the indications, and the nature of the adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although some of the limitations described are inherent in RCTs, some of the sources of bias highlighted in this article could be minimized by careful RCT design, planned follow-up, and improved collection of information on adverse events. As future research sheds more light on pertinent knowledge gaps and issues, the ability to maximize the use of RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs to address drug safety questions of interest will be greatly enhanced.

Mumps and ovarian cancer: modern interpretation of an historic association.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies found childhood mumps might protect against ovarian cancer. To explain this association, we investigated whether mumps might engender immunity to ovarian cancer through antibodies against the cancer-associated antigen MUC1 abnormally expressed in the inflamed parotid gland. METHODS: Through various health agencies, we obtained sera from 161 cases with mumps parotitis. Sera were obtained from 194 healthy controls. We used an ELISA to measure anti-MUC1 antibodies and electro-chemiluminescence assays to measure MUC1 and CA 125. Log-transformed measurements were analyzed by t-tests, generalized linear models, and Pearson or Spearman correlations. We also conducted a meta-analysis of all published studies regarding mumps and ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Adjusting for assay batch, age, and sex, the level of anti-MUC1 antibodies was significantly higher in mumps cases compared to controls (p = 0.002). Free circulating levels of CA 125, but not MUC1, were also higher in cases (p = 0.02). From the meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio estimate (and 95% CI) for the mumps and ovarian cancer association was 0.81 (0.68-0.96) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Mumps parotitis may lead to expression and immune recognition of a tumor-associated form of MUC1 and create effective immune surveillance of ovarian cancer cells that express this form of MUC1.

Use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents and incidence of ovarian cancer in 2 large prospective cohorts.

Epidemiologic data on the association between nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ovarian cancer risk have been inconsistent. The authors prospectively examined the association between regular use of aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs and ovarian cancer incidence among 197,486 participants of the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study-II (NHS-II) over 24 and 16 years of follow-up, respectively. Information on aspirin was initially assessed in 1980 (NHS) and 1989 (NHS-II) and on nonaspirin NSAIDs and acetaminophen in 1990 (NHS) and 1989 (NHS-II) and updated throughout follow-up. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for ovarian cancer risk factors. A total of 666 confirmed cases of epithelial ovarian cancer were identified over 2,790,986 person-years of follow-up. The hazard ratios associated with regular use of aspirin, nonaspirin NSAIDs, and acetaminophen were 1.11 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92, 1.33), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.01), and 1.14 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.43), respectively. The authors did not observe a dose-response relation with increased frequency or duration of regular use of any of these medications and ovarian cancer incidence. The results did not differ substantially by tumor histology. In this large prospective study, the authors found no compelling evidence to support an association between regular use of aspirin, nonaspirin NSAIDs, or acetaminophen and ovarian cancer incidence.

A systematic review of validated suicide outcome classification in observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Suicidal outcomes, including ideation, attempt, and completed suicide, are an important drug safety issue, though few epidemiological studies address the accuracy of suicidal outcome ascertainment. Our primary objective was to evaluate validated methods for suicidal outcome classification in electronic health care database studies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies that validated methods for suicidal outcome classification published 1 January 1990 to 15 March 2016. Abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers using prespecified criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value for suicidal outcomes were extracted by two reviewers. Methods followed PRISMA-P guidelines, PROSPERO Protocol: 2016: CRD42016042794. RESULTS: We identified 2202 citations, of which 34 validated the accuracy of measuring suicidal outcomes using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes or algorithms, chart review or vital records. ICD E-codes (E950-9) for suicide attempt had 2-19% sensitivity, and 83-100% positive predictive value (PPV). ICD algorithms that included events with 'uncertain' intent had 4-70% PPV. The three best-performing algorithms had 74-92% PPV, with improved sensitivity compared with E-codes. Read code algorithms had 14-68% sensitivity and 0-56% PPV. Studies estimated 19-80% sensitivity for chart review, and 41-97% sensitivity and 100% PPV for vital records. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacoepidemiological studies measuring suicidal outcomes often use methodologies with poor sensitivity or predictive value or both, which may result in underestimation of associations between drugs and suicidal behaviour. Studies should validate outcomes or use a previously validated algorithm with high PPV and acceptable sensitivity in an appropriate population and data source.