Tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: A case study of safety evaluations of a large postmarketing data set from multiple data sources

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the magnitude of serious adverse events (SAEs) observed in postmarketing reports of tocilizumab (TCZ) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in relation to SAEs observed in TCZ clinical trials and external epidemiology data.MethodsA total of 64,000 patient-years (PY) of TCZ exposure was needed to determine, with 90% power, whether rates of SAEs of interest (eg, death, hepatic, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular) were ≥50% higher (agreed with the Food and Drug Administration) than expected. Reporting rates were calculated for spontaneously reported SAEs, open-label or unblinded postmarketing clinical trials (phase 3b/4), and a Japanese postmarketing surveillance program in the global postmarketing safety database. Event rates were calculated for the registrational placebo-controlled trials and long-term extension data. External comparators for anti-tumor necrosis factor (aTNF)-treated RA patients were derived from a US-based health care insurance claims database or published literature.ResultsThe global postmarketing safety database provided 65,099 PY of TCZ exposure; the aTNF external comparator population provided 53,360 PY. Spontaneous reporting rates per 100 PY (95% confidence interval) were 8.3 (8.1, 8.5) SAEs, 0.39 (0.34, 0.44) deaths, 0.06 (0.04, 0.08) serious hepatic events, 0.15 (0.12, 0.18) serious gastrointestinal events, 0.09 (0.07, 0.12) serious myocardial infarctions, 0.15 (0.12, 0.18) serious strokes, and 0.07 (0.05, 0.09) cardiac deaths in the global postmarketing safety database. These were of similar magnitude to corresponding rates from registrational clinical trials, the aTNF external comparator population, and published literature.ConclusionsSAE rates observed among postmarketing TCZ users were similar to those of various comparison populations. Predetermined design of studies to compare postmarketing AEs using multiple data sources is a useful strategy that can be applied to other medications

Stroke risk and NSAIDs: A systematic review of observational studies

Aims: To perform a quantitative systematic review of observational studies on the risk of stroke associated with the use of individual NSAIDs. Methods and results: Searches were conducted using the Medline database within PubMed (1990-2008). Observational cohort or case-control studies were eligible if reported on the risk of cardiovascular events associated with individual NSAIDs versus the nonuse of NSAIDs. We found 3193 articles, in which 75 were eligible for review and abstraction. Of the 75 articles, 6 reported relative risk (RR) of stroke. Data were abstracted into a database using a standardized entry form. Two authors assessed study quality, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The pooled RR of all subtypes of incident stroke was increased with the current use of rofecoxib (RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.15-2.33) and diclofenac (RR=1.27, 95% CI=1.08-1.48). The pooled estimates for naproxen, ibuprofen, and celecoxib were close to unity. The risk of ischemic stroke was also increased with rofecoxib (RR=1.82, 95% CI=1.09-3.04) and diclofenac (RR=1.20, 95% CI=0.99-1.45). Data were inadequate to estimate the pooled RR by dose and duration, for other individual NSAIDs or nonischemic stroke subtypes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports an increased risk of ischemic stroke with the current use of rofecoxib and diclofenac. Additional studies are required to evaluate most individual NSAIDS, the effect of dose and duration, and the subtypes of stroke

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

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

Risk of acute myocardial infarction during use of individual NSAIDs: A nested case-control study from the SOS project

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of AMI for individual NSAIDs.METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed from a cohort of new NSAID users ≥18 years (1999-2011) match

Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies

BACKGROUND: The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose-lowering drugs (NIBGLD). METHODS: We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I(2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted. RESULTS: The summary relative risk (sRR) (95% CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04-1.24) [I(2) = 55%]. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced [I(2) = 16%]. The sRR (95% CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02-1.36) [I(2)  = 42%]. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I (2) ≥ 70%). The sRR (95% CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14-1.34) [I(2) = 41%] and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75-1.38) [I(2) = 17%]. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24% compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity