Global epidemiology of hip fractures: a study protocol using a common analytical platform among multiple countries

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are associated with a high burden of morbidity and mortality. Globally, there is wide variation in the incidence of hip fracture in people aged 50 years and older. Longitudinal and cross-geographical comparisons of health data can provide insights on aetiology, risk factors, and healthcare practices. However, systematic reviews of studies that use different methods and study periods do not permit direct comparison across geographical regions. Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate global secular trends in hip fracture incidence, mortality and use of postfracture pharmacological treatment across Asia, Oceania, North and South America, and Western and Northern Europe using a unified methodology applied to health records. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This retrospective cohort study will use a common protocol and an analytical common data model approach to examine incidence of hip fracture across population-based databases in different geographical regions and healthcare settings. The study period will be from 2005 to 2018 subject to data availability in study sites. Patients aged 50 years and older and hospitalised due to hip fracture during the study period will be included. The primary outcome will be expressed as the annual incidence of hip fracture. Secondary outcomes will be the pharmacological treatment rate and mortality within 12 months following initial hip fracture by year. For the primary outcome, crude and standardised incidence of hip fracture will be reported. Linear regression will be used to test for time trends in the annual incidence. For secondary outcomes, the crude mortality and standardised mortality incidence will be reported. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Each participating site will follow the relevant local ethics and regulatory frameworks for study approval. The results of the study will be submitted for peer-reviewed scientific publications and presented at scientific conferences

NSAIDs and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Original studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data

Correction to: Comparative Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran or Rivaroxaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonists: A High-Dimensional Propensity Score Matched New Users Cohort Study in the French National Healthcare Data System SNDS

Correction to: American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs (2020) 20:81–103 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-019-00359-

Therapie

BACKGROUND: Quadruple therapy using a single capsule formulation of bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline (BMT; Pylera®), associated with omeprazole for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori, represents the reintroduction of bismuth in France after 40 years. OBJECTIVE: To describe the real-life patterns of use of BMT following a request from the French health authorities. METHODS: Patients with a first BMT dispensing (index date, ID), with one year of data before and after ID, were identified in the French nationwide claims database 1/97 sample. Misuse of BMT was defined as dispensing>1 pack of BMT at ID or absence of a diagnostic test in the preceding year. RESULTS: In total, 540 patients were included. Prescribers were gastroenterologists (n=243; 45%) and general practitioners (n=160; 30%). A proton pump inhibitor was co-dispensed to 504 patients (96%). Ten patients (2%) had contraindications to BMT. Fifty-nine patients (11%) met the misuse criteria: ten (2%) were dispensed>1 pack of BMT and 49 (9%) had not had a diagnostic test for H. pylori in the previous year. During follow-up, 27 patients (5%) required retreatment (treatment failure). CONCLUSION: In this real-life study, most patients were dispensed only one pack of BMT, consistent with recommendations. Misuse related principally to the absence of prior diagnostic test for H. pylori

Br J Clin Pharmacol

Aims : To assess the effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) on annual rate of relapse subject to treatment (ARRt) and disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) compared to injectable immunomodulators (IMM), teriflunomide (TERI) and fingolimob (FTY), in real-life setting. Methods : A population-based cohort study was conducted using data of the French nationwide claims database, SNDS. All patients initiating IMM, TERI, FTY or DMF between 1 July 2015 and 12 December 2017, with 4.5 years of database history and 1–3.5 years of follow-up were included in this study. DMF patients were 1:1 matched to IMM, TERI or FTY using a high dimensional propensity score. Negative binomial regression and a logistic regression model were used to estimate the relative risk (RR ± [95% CI]) of ARRt and the odds ratio (OR ± [95% CI]) of disability progression, respectively. Results : Overall, 9304 subjects were identified: 29.0% initiated DMF, 33.2% TERI, 5.6% FTY and 32.2% an IMM. The matched cohorts consisted of 1779 DMF-IMM patients, 1679 DMF-TERI patients, and 376 DMF-FTY patients. DMF significantly reduced ARRt compared to IMM (RR 0.72 [0.61–0.86]) and TERI (0.81 [0.68–0.96]) and did not show any significant difference when compared with FTY. The risk of the progression of MS-specific disability was not significantly different for any matched cohorts. Conclusion : DMF is associated with lower risk of treated relapse for patients with RRMS than other first-line RRMS agents (TERI and IIM)

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes but without prior myocardial infarction or stroke and THEMIS-like patients: real-world prevalence and risk of major outcomes from the SNDS French nationwide claims database

International audienceAIM AND HYPOTHESES: The THEMIS randomized trial compared ticagrelor plus aspirin versus placebo plus aspirin for patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (CAD-T2DM), and without prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The aim of the study was to quantify the size of the CAD-T2DM population without prior MI or stroke population in a real-world setting, and more specifically populations with similar THEMIS selection criteria (THEMIS-like and THEMIS-PCI-like populations), as well as their risk of major outcomes in current practice. METHODS: A 2-year follow-up cohort study included all CAD-T2DM without MI/stroke prevalent patients on January 1st, 2014 in the SNDS French nationwide claims database. The THEMIS-like population concerned those ≥ 50 years of age with similar THEMIS inclusion and exclusion criteria. Prevalence was standardized to the European population. The cumulative incidence function was used to estimate the incidence of clinical outcomes (MI, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding according to the TIMI classification) with death as competing risk, and the Kaplan-Meier estimate for all-cause death and a composite outcome of MI, stroke and all-cause death. RESULTS: From a population of about 50 million adults, the prevalence of CAD-T2DM without MI/stroke, THEMIS-like and THEMIS-PCI-like populations was respectively at 6.04, 1.50 and 0.27 per 1000 adults, with a mean age of 72.7, 72.3 and 70.9 years and less comorbidities and diabetic complications for the THEMIS-like and THEMIS-PCI-like population. The 2-year cumulative incidence was respectively 1.7%, 1.3% and 1.6% for MI, 1.7%, 1.5% and 1.4% for stroke, 4.8%, 3.1% and 2.9% for major bleeding, 13.6%, 9.7% and 6.8% for all-cause death, and 16.2%, 12.0% and 9.5% for the composite outcome. CONCLUSION: THEMIS-like prevalence was estimated at 1.50 per 1,000 adults, representing about a quarter of CAD-T2DM without MI/stroke patients, and 0.27 per 1000 adults for the THEMIS-PCI-like populations. In current French practice, the median age of both these populations was about 5-6 years older than in the THEMIS trial, with a 2-year incidence of major outcomes between two or four time above the ones of the placebo arm of the THEMIS trial using very close definitions. Registration No. EUPAS27402 ( http://www.ENCEPP.eu )

Intra-database validation of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted electronic health records from healthcare claims data

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis performances of case-identifying algorithms developed in healthcare database are usually assessed by comparing identified cases with an external data source. When this is not feasible, intra-database validation can present an appropriate alternative. OBJECTIVES: To illustrate through two practical examples how to perform intra-database validations of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted Electronic Health Records (rEHRs). METHODS: Patients with 1) multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses and 2) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were identified in the French nationwide healthcare database (SNDS) using two case-identifying algorithms. A validation study was then conducted to estimate diagnostic performances of these algorithms through the calculation of their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). To that end, anonymized rEHRs were generated based on the overall information captured in the SNDS over time (e.g. procedure, hospital stays, drug dispensing, medical visits) for a random selection of patients identified as cases or non-cases according to the predefined algorithms. For each disease, an independent validation committee reviewed the rEHRs of 100 cases and 100 non-cases in order to adjudicate on the status of the selected patients (true case/ true non-case), blinded with respect to the result of the corresponding algorithm. RESULTS: Algorithm for relapses identification in MS showed a 95% PPV and 100% NPV. Algorithm for mCRPC identification showed a 97% PPV and 99% NPV. CONCLUSION: The use of rEHRs to conduct an intra-database validation appears to be a valuable tool to estimate the performances of a case-identifying algorithm and assess its validity, in the absence of alternative

Use of IV Iron and Risk of Anaphylaxis: A Multinational Observational Post-Authorisation Safety Study in Europe

PURPOSE: This post-authorisation safety study estimated the risk of anaphylaxis in patients receiving intravenous (IV) iron in Europe, with interest in iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. Studies conducted in the United States have reported risk of anaphylaxis to IV iron ranging from 2.0 to 6.8 per 10 000 first treatments. METHODS: Cohort study of IV iron new users, captured mostly through pharmacy ambulatory dispensing, from populations covered by health and administrative data sources in five European countries from 1999 to 2017. Anaphylaxis events were identified through an algorithm that used parenteral penicillin as a positive control. RESULTS: A total of 304 210 patients with a first IV iron treatment (6367 iron dextran), among whom 13–16 anaphylaxis cases were identified and reported as a range to comply with data protection regulations. The pooled unadjusted incidence proportion (IP) ranged from 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2–0.9) to 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3–1.0) per 10 000 first treatments. No events were identified at first dextran treatments. There were 231 294 first penicillin treatments with 30 potential cases of anaphylaxis (IP = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8–1.7 per 10 000 treatments). CONCLUSION: We found an IP of anaphylaxis from 0.4 to 0.5 per 10 000 first IV iron treatments. The study captured only a fraction of IV iron treatments administered in hospitals, where most first treatments are likely to happen. Due to this limitation, the study could not exclude a differential risk of anaphylaxis between iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. The IP of anaphylaxis in users of penicillin was consistent with incidences reported in the literature