Person:

Gagne, Joshua

BACKGROUND: Methods for near-real-time monitoring of new drugs in electronic healthcare data are needed. OBJECTIVE: In a novel application, we prospectively monitored ischemic, bleeding, and mortality outcomes among patients initiating prasugrel versus clopidogrel in routine care during the first 2 years following the approval of prasugrel. METHODS: Using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, we conducted a prospective cohort study comparing prasugrel and clopidogrel initiators in the 6 months following the introduction of prasugrel and every 2 months thereafter. We identified patients who initiated antiplatelets within 14 days following discharge from hospitalizations for myocardial infarction (MI) or acute coronary syndrome. We matched patients using high-dimensional propensity scores (hd-PSs) and followed them for ischemic (i.e., MI and ischemic stroke) events, bleed (i.e., hemorrhagic stroke and gastrointestinal bleed) events, and all-cause mortality. For each outcome, we applied sequential alerting algorithms. RESULTS: We identified 1,282 eligible new users of prasugrel and 8,263 eligible new users of clopidogrel between September 2009 and August 2011. In hd-PS matched cohorts, the overall MI rate difference (RD) comparing prasugrel with clopidogrel was -23.1 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -62.8-16.7) events per 1,000 person-years and RDs were -0.5 (-12.9-11.9) and -2.8 (-13.2-7.6) for a composite bleed event outcome and death from any cause, respectively. No algorithms generated alerts for any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Near-real-time monitoring was feasible and, in contrast to the key pre-marketing trial that demonstrated the efficacy of prasugrel, did not suggest that prasugrel compared with clopidogrel was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and intracranial bleeding.

Objective: To evaluate whether smoking status is associated with the efficacy of antiplatelet treatment in the prevention of cardiovascular events. Design: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and indirect comparisons. Data sources Medline (1966 to present) and Embase (1974 to present), with supplementary searches in databases of abstracts from major cardiology conferences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) and the CAB Abstracts databases, and Google Scholar. Study selection Randomized trials of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor that examined clinical outcomes among subgroups of smokers and nonsmokers. Data extraction Two authors independently extracted all data, including information on the patient populations included in the trials, treatment types and doses, definitions of clinical outcomes and duration of follow-up, definitions of smoking subgroups and number of patients in each group, and effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals for each smoking status subgroup. Results: Of nine eligible randomized trials, one investigated clopidogrel compared with aspirin, four investigated clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone, and one investigated double dose compared with standard dose clopidogrel; these trials include 74 489 patients, of whom 21 717 (29%) were smokers. Among smokers, patients randomized to clopidogrel experienced a 25% reduction in the primary composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with patients in the control groups (relative risk 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.83). In nonsmokers, however, clopidogrel produced just an 8% reduction in the composite outcome (0.92, 0.87 to 0.98). Two studies investigated prasugrel plus aspirin compared with clopidogrel plus aspirin, and one study investigated ticagrelor plus aspirin compared with clopidogrel plus aspirin. In smokers, the relative risk was 0.71 (0.61 to 0.82) for prasugrel compared with clopidogrel and 0.83 (0.68 to 1.00) for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. Corresponding relative risks were 0.92 (0.83 to 1.01) and 0.89 (0.79 to 1.00) among nonsmokers. Conclusions: In randomized clinical trials of antiplatelet drugs, the reported clinical benefit of clopidogrel in reducing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was seen primarily in smokers, with little benefit in nonsmokers.

Objective: To examine the relation between the type of stress ulcer prophylaxis administered and the risk of postoperative pneumonia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Premier Research Database. Participants:: 21 214 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery between 2004 and 2010; 9830 (46.3%) started proton pump inhibitors and 11 384 (53.7%) started H2 receptor antagonists in the immediate postoperative period. Main outcome measure Occurrence of postoperative pneumonia, assessed using appropriate diagnostic codes. Results: Overall, 492 (5.0%) of the 9830 patients receiving a proton pump inhibitor and 487 (4.3%) of the 11 384 patients receiving an H2 receptor antagonist developed postoperative pneumonia during the index hospital admission. After propensity score adjustment, an elevated risk of pneumonia associated with treatment with proton pump inhibitors compared with H2 receptor antagonists remained (relative risk 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.38). In the instrumental variable analysis, use of a proton pump inhibitor (compared with an H2 receptor antagonist) was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia of 8.2 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 15.9) cases per 1000 patients. Conclusions: Patients treated with proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer had a small increase in the risk of postoperative pneumonia compared with patients treated with H2 receptor antagonists; this risk remained after confounding was accounted for using multiple analytic approaches.

Objective: To examine methods for generating evidence on health outcomes in patients with rare diseases. Design: Methodological review of existing literature. Setting: PubMed, Embase, and Academic Search Premier searched for articles describing innovative approaches to randomized trial design and analysis methods and methods for conducting observational research in patients with rare diseases. Main outcome measures We assessed information related to the proposed methods, the specific rare disease being studied, and outcomes from the application of the methods. We summarize methods with respect to their advantages in studying health outcomes in rare diseases and provide examples of their application. Results: We identified 46 articles that proposed or described methods for studying patient health outcomes in rare diseases. Articles covered a wide range of rare diseases and most (72%) were published in 2008 or later. We identified 16 research strategies for studying rare disease. Innovative clinical trial methods minimize sample size requirements (n=4) and maximize the proportion of patients who receive active treatment (n=2), strategies crucial to studying small populations of patients with limited treatment choices. No studies describing unique methods for conducting observational studies in patients with rare diseases were identified. Conclusions: Though numerous studies apply unique clinical trial designs and considerations to assess patient health outcomes in rare diseases, less attention has been paid to innovative methods for studying rare diseases using observational data.

Background: Statins are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, but patients do not fully adhere to them. Objective: To determine whether patients are more adherent to generic statins versus brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes. Design: Observational, propensity score–matched, new-user cohort study. Setting: Linked electronic data from medical and pharmacy claims. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with prescription drug coverage between 2006 and 2008. Intervention: Initiation of a generic or brand-name statin. Measurements: Adherence to statin therapy (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC] up to 1 year) and a composite outcome comprising hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome or stroke and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute rate differences were estimated. Results: A total of 90 111 patients who initiated a statin during the study was identified; 83 731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug. The mean age of patients was 75.6 years, and most (61%) were female. The average PDC was 77% for patients in the generic group and 71% for those in the brand-name group (P < 0.001). An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). The absolute difference was −1.53 events per 100 person-years (CI, −2.69 to −0.19 events per 100 person-years). Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to other populations with different incomes or drug benefit structures. Conclusion: Compared with those initiating brand-name statins, patients initiating generic statins were more likely to adhere and had a lower rate of a composite clinical outcome. Primary Funding Source: Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Background: To improve equity in access to medical research, successful strategies are needed to recruit diverse populations. Here, we examine experiences of community health center (CHC) staff who guided an informed consent process to overcome recruitment barriers in a medical record review study. Methods: We conducted ten semi-structured interviews with CHC staff members. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and structurally and thematically coded. We used NVivo, an ethnographic data management software program, to analyze themes related to recruitment challenges. Results: CHC interviewees reported that a key challenge to recruitment included the difficult balance between institutional review board (IRB) requirements for informed consent, and conveying an appropriate level of risk to patients. CHC staff perceived that the requirements of IRB certification itself posed a barrier to allowing diverse staff to participate in recruitment efforts. A key barrier to recruitment also included the lack of updated contact information on CHC patients. CHC interviewees reported that the successes they experienced reflected an alignment between study aims and CHC goals, and trusted relationships between CHCs and staff and the patients they recruited. Conclusions: Making IRB training more accessible to CHC-based staff, improving consent form clarity for participants, and developing processes for routinely updating patient information would greatly lower recruitment barriers for diverse populations in health services research.

We developed a semi-automated active monitoring system that uses sequential matched-cohort analyses to assess drug safety across a distributed network of longitudinal electronic healthcare data. In a retrospective analysis, we showed that the system would have identified cerivastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis. In this study, we evaluated whether the system would generate alerts for three drug-outcome pairs: rosuvastatin and rhabdomyolysis (known null association), rosuvastatin and diabetes mellitus, and telithromycin and hepatotoxicity (two examples for which alerting would be questionable). During >5 years of monitoring, rate differences (RDs) comparing rosuvastatin to atorvastatin were -0.1 cases of rhabdomyolysis per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -0.4, 0.1) and -2.2 diabetes cases per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -6.0, 1.6). The RD for hepatotoxicity comparing telithromycin to azithromycin was 0.3 cases per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, -0.5, 1.0). In a setting in which false positivity is a major concern, the system did not generate alerts for three drug-outcome pairs.

Background: Multivariable confounder adjustment in comparative studies of newly marketed drugs can be limited by small numbers of exposed patients and even fewer outcomes. Disease risk scores (DRSs) developed in historical comparator drug users before the new drug entered the market may improve adjustment. However, in a high dimensional data setting, empirical selection of hundreds of potential confounders and modeling of DRS even in the historical cohort can lead to over-fitting and reduced predictive performance in the study cohort. We propose the use of combinations of dimension reduction and shrinkage methods to overcome this problem, and compared the performances of these modeling strategies for implementing high dimensional (hd) DRSs from historical data in two empirical study examples of newly marketed drugs versus comparator drugs after the new drugs’ market entry—dabigatran versus warfarin for the outcome of major hemorrhagic events and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (coxibs) versus nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) for gastrointestinal bleeds. Results: Historical hdDRSs that included predefined and empirical outcome predictors with dimension reduction (principal component analysis; PCA) and shrinkage (lasso and ridge regression) approaches had higher c-statistics (0.66 for the PCA model, 0.64 for the PCA + ridge and 0.65 for the PCA + lasso models in the warfarin users) than an unreduced model (c-statistic, 0.54) in the dabigatran example. The odds ratio (OR) from PCA + lasso hdDRS-stratification [OR, 0.64; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.90] was closer to the benchmark estimate (0.93) from a randomized trial than the model without empirical predictors (OR, 0.58; 95 % CI 0.41–0.81). In the coxibs example, c-statistics of the hdDRSs in the nsNSAID initiators were 0.66 for the PCA model, 0.67 for the PCA + ridge model, and 0.67 for the PCA + lasso model; these were higher than for the unreduced model (c-statistic, 0.45), and comparable to the demographics + risk score model (c-statistic, 0.67). Conclusions: hdDRSs using historical data with dimension reduction and shrinkage was feasible, and improved confounding adjustment in two studies of newly marketed medications. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12982-016-0047-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: A number of observational studies have reported that, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), β blockers (BBs) decrease risk of mortality and COPD exacerbations. To address important methodological concerns of these studies, we compared the effectiveness and safety of cardioselective BBs versus non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (non-DHP CCBs) in patients with COPD and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) using a propensity score (PS)-matched, active comparator, new user design. We also assessed for potential unmeasured confounding by examining a short-term COPD hospitalisation outcome. Setting and participants We identified 22 985 patients with COPD and ACS starting cardioselective BBs or non-DHP CCBs across 5 claims databases from the USA, Italy and Taiwan. Primary and secondary outcome measures Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate HRs for mortality, cardiovascular (CV) hospitalisations and COPD hospitalisations in each database after variable-ratio PS matching. Results were combined with random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Cardioselective BBs were not associated with reduced risk of mortality (HR, 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02) or CV hospitalisations (HR, 1.06; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23), although statistical heterogeneity was observed across databases. In contrast, a consistent, inverse association for COPD hospitalisations was identified across databases (HR, 0.54; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.61), which persisted even within the first 30 days of follow-up (HR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82). Results were similar across a variety of sensitivity analyses, including PS trimming, high dimensional-PS matching and restricting to high-risk patients. Conclusions: This multinational study found a large inverse association between cardioselective BBs and short-term COPD hospitalisations. The persistence of this bias despite state-of-the-art pharmacoepidemiologic methods calls into question the ability of claims data to address confounding in studies of BBs in patients with COPD.