The experience of accommodating privacy restrictions during implementation of a large-scale surveillance study of an osteoporosis medication.

PurposeTo explore whether privacy restrictions developed to protect patients have complicated research within a 15-year surveillance study conducted with US cancer registries.MethodsData from enrolling 27 cancer registries over a 10-year period were examined to describe the amount of time needed to obtain study approval. We also analyzed the proportion of patients that completed a research interview out of the total reported by the registries and examined factors thought to influence this measure.ResultsThe average length of the research review process from submission to approval of the research was 7 months (range, <1 to 24 months), and it took 6 months or more to obtain approval of the research at 41% of the cancer registries. Most registries (78%) required additional permission steps to gain access to patients for research. After adjustment for covariates, the interview response proportion was 110% greater (ratio of response proportion = 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 3.3) when the least restrictive versus the most restrictive permission steps were required. An interview was more often completed for patients (or proxies) if patients were alive, within a year of being diagnosed, or identified earlier in the study.ConclusionsLengthy research review processes increased the time between diagnosis and provision of patient information to the researcher. Requiring physician permission for access to patients was associated with lower subject participation. A single national point of entry for use of cancer registry data in health research is worthy of consideration to make the research approval process efficient. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Study Design and Cohort Comparability in a Study of Major Cardiovascular Events in New Users of Prucalopride Versus Polyethylene Glycol 3350

INTRODUCTION: Given prior safety experience with other 5-HT4 agonists for chronic constipation, an observational, population-based cohort study in five data sources from Germany, Sweden, and the UK was conducted to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of prucalopride. OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to describe the methods and resulting comparability of cohorts in a multi-database, multinational study of prucalopride initiators and polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG) initiators following a harmonized protocol. METHODS: Prucalopride initiators were matched on age, sex, and index date to PEG initiators (1:5 ratio). Study exposures, cardiovascular risk factors, and other covariates were identified from healthcare utilization codes harmonized across databases. Cardiovascular outcomes were identified using database-specific algorithms based on diagnosis codes. The propensity score (PS) in each database was estimated using logistic regression, with prucalopride versus PEG as the outcome and including clinically relevant variables associated with major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: In total, 12,030 prucalopride initiators and 59,985 PEG initiators were identified. After matching and trimming, cohorts from the UK and Sweden were well-balanced for cardiovascular risk factors and cancer. However, in Germany, PEG initiators remained older and sicker than prucalopride initiators. The prevalence of these characteristics also differed from those in the UK and Sweden. The pooled analyses included only data from the UK and Sweden. CONCLUSIONS: Matching, trimming, and PS stratification yielded comparable cohorts in four of five data sources. Use of these methods could not achieve balance for key covariates within the German cohort, likely due to reimbursement differences in Germany

Cardiovascular Safety of Prucalopride in Patients with Chronic Constipation:A Multinational Population-Based Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: The serotonin 5-HT4 receptor agonist prucalopride is approved in the European Union for the treatment of chronic constipation. This offered the unique opportunity to include real-world observational data on cardiovascular safety in the new drug application for approval of prucalopride in the USA. METHODS: This observational population-based cohort study (EUPAS9200) conducted in five data sources (three in the UK, one in Sweden, and one in Germany [which was subsequently excluded from the pooled analyses]) aimed to estimate the pooled adjusted incidence rate ratio for major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as hospitalization for non-fatal acute myocardial infarction or stroke, and in-hospital cardiovascular death) in adult initiators of prucalopride compared with initiators of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG) following a common protocol. Standardized incidence rates and incidence rate ratios of major adverse cardiovascular events were derived using propensity score stratification. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of exposure definition, outcome categories, interim cancer, and unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: The pooled analyses included 5715 initiators of prucalopride and 29,372 initiators of PEG. Average duration of use was 175 days for prucalopride and 82 days for PEG. The pooled standardized incidence rate per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval) of major adverse cardiovascular events was 6.57 (3.90–10.39) for patients initiating prucalopride and 10.24 (6.97–14.13) for PEG. The pooled adjusted incidence rate ratio for major adverse cardiovascular events was 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.36–1.14). Results remained consistent in various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled incidence rate ratio estimate was consistent with no indication of an increased risk above the pre-specified safety threshold of 3.00 for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic constipation using prucalopride as compared with PEG

The European postmarketing adult Osteosarcoma Surveillance Study: characteristics of patients A preliminary report

The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group (SSG) registry participates in a multinational postmarketing drug surveillance study evaluating potential medication exposures (including teriparatide) in a population-based series of adult osteosarcoma cases. We present preliminary data from this study. The SSG registry systematically identifies eligible cases in collaboration with regional and national cancer registries in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. All cases aged ?: 40 years initially diagnosed in January 2004 or later with histologically confirmed osteosarcoma or 5 other prespecified types of bone sarcomas are eligible. Data were collected from the medical records. This review includes all information abstracted to date from patient records of 49 of 85 cases diagnosed between January 2004 and September 2008 (estimated to be all reported adult cases). All patients were Caucasian, mean age 59 (41-88 years), the majority were men. The most prevalent morphology subtypes were osteosarcoma NOS and chondroblastic osteosarcoma. Leg bones were the most frequent tumor site. Potential risk factors for osteosarcoma included prior history of cancer (27%), radiation treatment (24%), or prior injury or infection at the site of the tumor (14%). Site of prior radiation treatment and osteosarcoma tumor matched for 7/9 cases. One prior history of Paget's disease was reported. Treatment with teriparatide before diagnosis had not been reported. Data collected in this study present population based demographic and risk-factor data and are consistent with prior research reporting a link between radiation site and tumor site, and a possible association between osteosarcoma and prior history of cancer, and prior injury or infection at the site of the tumor

The experience of accommodating privacy restrictions during implementation of a large‐scale surveillance study of an osteoporosis medication

PURPOSE: To explore whether privacy restrictions developed to protect patients have complicated research within a 15‐year surveillance study conducted with US cancer registries. METHODS: Data from enrolling 27 cancer registries over a 10‐year period were examined to describe the amount of time needed to obtain study approval. We also analyzed the proportion of patients that completed a research interview out of the total reported by the registries and examined factors thought to influence this measure. RESULTS: The average length of the research review process from submission to approval of the research was 7 months (range, <1 to 24 months), and it took 6 months or more to obtain approval of the research at 41% of the cancer registries. Most registries (78%) required additional permission steps to gain access to patients for research. After adjustment for covariates, the interview response proportion was 110% greater (ratio of response proportion = 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 3.3) when the least restrictive versus the most restrictive permission steps were required. An interview was more often completed for patients (or proxies) if patients were alive, within a year of being diagnosed, or identified earlier in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Lengthy research review processes increased the time between diagnosis and provision of patient information to the researcher. Requiring physician permission for access to patients was associated with lower subject participation. A single national point of entry for use of cancer registry data in health research is worthy of consideration to make the research approval process efficient. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

The experience of accommodating privacy restrictions during implementation of a large-scale surveillance study of an osteoporosis medication.

PurposeTo explore whether privacy restrictions developed to protect patients have complicated research within a 15-year surveillance study conducted with US cancer registries.MethodsData from enrolling 27 cancer registries over a 10-year period were examined to describe the amount of time needed to obtain study approval. We also analyzed the proportion of patients that completed a research interview out of the total reported by the registries and examined factors thought to influence this measure.ResultsThe average length of the research review process from submission to approval of the research was 7 months (range, &lt;1 to 24 months), and it took 6 months or more to obtain approval of the research at 41% of the cancer registries. Most registries (78%) required additional permission steps to gain access to patients for research. After adjustment for covariates, the interview response proportion was 110% greater (ratio of response proportion = 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 3.3) when the least restrictive versus the most restrictive permission steps were required. An interview was more often completed for patients (or proxies) if patients were alive, within a year of being diagnosed, or identified earlier in the study.ConclusionsLengthy research review processes increased the time between diagnosis and provision of patient information to the researcher. Requiring physician permission for access to patients was associated with lower subject participation. A single national point of entry for use of cancer registry data in health research is worthy of consideration to make the research approval process efficient. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd

Prevalence of Airway Obstruction Assessed by Lung Function Questionnaire

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of unidentified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and determine the screening accuracy of the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ)