Comparison of Benefit-Risk Assessment Methods for Prospective Monitoring of Newly Marketed Drugs: A Simulation Study

AbstractObjectivesTo compare benefit-risk assessment (BRA) methods for determining whether and when sufficient evidence exists to indicate that one drug is favorable over another in prospective monitoring.MethodsWe simulated prospective monitoring of a new drug (A) versus an alternative drug (B) with respect to two beneficial and three harmful outcomes. We generated data for 1000 iterations of six scenarios and applied four BRA metrics: number needed to treat and number needed to harm (NNT|NNH), incremental net benefit (INB) with maximum acceptable risk, INB with relative-value–adjusted life-years, and INB with quality-adjusted life-years. We determined the proportion of iterations in which the 99% confidence interval for each metric included and excluded the null and we calculated mean time to alerting.ResultsWith no true difference in any outcome between drugs A and B, the proportion of iterations including the null was lowest for INB with relative-value–adjusted life-years (64%) and highest for INB with quality-adjusted life-years (76%). When drug A was more effective and the drugs were equally safe, all metrics indicated net favorability of A in more than 70% of the iterations. When drug A was safer than drug B, NNT|NNH had the highest proportion of iterations indicating net favorability of drug A (65%). Mean time to alerting was similar among methods across the six scenarios.ConclusionsBRA metrics can be useful for identifying net favorability when applied to prospective monitoring of a new drug versus an alternative drug. INB-based approaches similarly outperform unweighted NNT|NNH approaches. Time to alerting was similar across approaches

Type of stress ulcer prophylaxis and risk of nosocomial pneumonia in cardiac surgical patients: cohort study

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

Risk of opioid overdose associated with concomitant use of oxycodone and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

IMPORTANCE: Some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) inhibit the enzymes responsible for the metabolism of oxycodone, a potent prescription opioid. The clinical consequences of this interaction on the risk of opioid overdose have not been elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To compare opioid overdose rates in patients initiating oxycodone while taking SSRIs that are potent inhibitors of the cytochrome-P450 2D6 enzyme (CYP2D6) vs SSRIs that are not. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included adults who initiated oxycodone while receiving SSRI therapy between 2000 and 2020 whose data were included in 3 US health insurance databases. EXPOSURES: Use of SSRIs that strongly inhibit CYP2D6 enzyme (fluoxetine or paroxetine) vs use of other SSRIs at the time of oxycodone initiation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Opioid overdose hospitalization or emergency department visit. Outcomes were assessed within 365 days of oxycodone initiation; in primary analyses, patients were followed up until the discontinuation of either oxycodone or their index SSRI group. Propensity score matching weights were used to adjust for confounding. Crude and weighted (adjusted) incidence rates and hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression models, separately within each database and overall, stratifying on database. RESULTS: A total of 2 037 490 initiated oxycodone while taking SSRIs (1 475 114 [72.4%] women; mean [SD] age, 50.1 [15.3] years). Most (1 418 712 [69.6%]) were receiving other SSRIs at the time of oxycodone initiation. In the primary analysis, we observed 1035 overdose events (0.05% of the study cohort). The adjusted incidence rate of opioid overdose in those using inhibiting SSRIs at the time of oxycodone initiation (9.47 per 1000 person-years) was higher than in those using other SSRIs (7.66 per 1000 person-years), indicating a greater risk of overdose among patients using CYP2D6-inhibiting SSRIs (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31). Results were consistent across multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of US adults, initiating oxycodone in patients treated with paroxetine or fluoxetine was associated with a small increased risk of opioid overdose

A Unified Framework for Classification of Methods for Benefit-Risk Assessment

AbstractBackgroundPatients, physicians, and other decision makers make implicit but inevitable trade-offs among risks and benefits of treatments. Many methods have been proposed to promote transparent and rigorous benefit-risk analysis (BRA).ObjectiveTo propose a framework for classifying BRA methods on the basis of key factors that matter most for patients by using a common mathematical notation and compare their results using a hypothetical example.MethodsWe classified the available BRA methods into three categories: 1) unweighted metrics, which use only probabilities of benefits and risks; 2) metrics that incorporate preference weights and that account for the impact and duration of benefits and risks; and 3) metrics that incorporate weights based on decision makers’ opinions. We used two hypothetical antiplatelet drugs (a and b) to compare the BRA methods within our proposed framework.ResultsUnweighted metrics include the number needed to treat and the number needed to harm. Metrics that incorporate preference weights include those that use maximum acceptable risk, those that use relative-value–adjusted life-years, and those that use quality-adjusted life-years. Metrics that use decision makers’ weights include the multicriteria decision analysis, the benefit-less-risk analysis, Boers’ 3 by 3 table, the Gail/NCI method, and the transparent uniform risk benefit overview. Most BRA methods can be derived as a special case of a generalized formula in which some are mathematically identical. Numerical comparison of methods highlights potential differences in BRA results and their interpretation.ConclusionsThe proposed framework provides a unified, patient-centered approach to BRA methods classification based on the types of weights that are used across existing methods, a key differentiating feature

Pharmacy-based interventions to reduce primary medication nonadherence to cardiovascular medications

BACKGROUND: Primary medication nonadherence (PMN) occurs when patients do not fill new prescriptions. Interventions to reduce PMN have not been well described. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether 2 pharmacy-based interventions could decrease PMN. DESIGN: Two sequential interventions with a control group were evaluated after completion. The automated intervention began in 2007 and consisted of phone calls to patients on the third and seventh days after a prescription was processed but remained unpurchased. The live intervention began in 2009 and used calls from a pharmacist or technician to patients who still had not picked up their prescriptions after 8 days. SUBJECTS: Patients with newly prescribed cardiovascular medications received at CVS community pharmacies. Patients with randomly selected birthdays served as the control population. MEASURES: Patient abandonment of new prescription, defined as not picking up medications within 30 days of initial processing at the pharmacy. RESULTS: The automated intervention included 852,612 patients and 1.2 million prescriptions, with a control group of 9282 patients and 13,178 prescriptions. The live intervention included 121,155 patients and 139,502 prescriptions with a control group of 2976 patients and 3407 prescriptions. The groups were balanced by age, sex, and patterns of prior prescription use. For the automated intervention, 4.2% of prescriptions were abandoned in the intervention group and 4.5% in the control group (P>0.1), with no significant differences for any individual classes of medications. The live intervention was used in a group that had not purchased prescriptions after 8 days and thus had much higher PMN. In this setting 36.9% of prescriptions were abandoned in the intervention group and 41.7% in the control group, a difference of 4.8% (P0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Automated reminder calls had no effect on PMN. Live calls from pharmacists decreased antihypertensive PMN significantly, although many patients still abandoned their prescriptions