18 research outputs found

    Data sources and applied methods for paclitaxel safety signal discernment

    Get PDF
    BackgroundFollowing the identification of a late mortality signal, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened an advisory panel that concluded that additional clinical study data are needed to comprehensively evaluate the late mortality signal observed with the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES). The objective of this review is to (1) identify and summarize the existing clinical and cohort studies assessing paclitaxel-coated DCBs and DESs, (2) describe and determine the quality of the available data sources for the evaluation of these devices, and (3) present methodologies that can be leveraged for proper signal discernment within available data sources.MethodsStudies and data sources were identified through comprehensive searches. original research studies, clinical trials, comparative studies, multicenter studies, and observational cohort studies written in the English language and published from January 2007 to November 2021, with a follow-up longer than 36 months, were included in the review. Data quality of available data sources identified was assessed in three groupings. Moreover, accepted data-driven methodologies that may help circumvent the limitations of the extracted studies and data sources were extracted and described.ResultsThere were 39 studies and data sources identified. This included 19 randomized clinical trials, nine single-arm studies, eight registries, three administrative claims, and electronic health records. Methodologies focusing on the use of existing premarket clinical data, the incorporation of all contributed patient time, the use of aggregated data, approaches for individual-level data, machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches, Bayesian approaches, and the combination of various datasets were summarized.ConclusionDespite the multitude of available studies over the course of eleven years following the first clinical trial, the FDA-convened advisory panel found them insufficient for comprehensively assessing the late-mortality signal. High-quality data sources with the capabilities of employing advanced statistical methodologies are needed to detect potential safety signals in a timely manner and allow regulatory bodies to act quickly when a safety signal is detected

    Data sources and applied methods for paclitaxel safety signal discernment

    Get PDF
    Background Following the identification of a late mortality signal, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened an advisory panel that concluded that additional clinical study data are needed to comprehensively evaluate the late mortality signal observed with the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES). The objective of this review is to (1) identify and summarize the existing clinical and cohort studies assessing paclitaxel-coated DCBs and DESs, (2) describe and determine the quality of the available data sources for the evaluation of these devices, and (3) present methodologies that can be leveraged for proper signal discernment within available data sources. Methods Studies and data sources were identified through comprehensive searches. original research studies, clinical trials, comparative studies, multicenter studies, and observational cohort studies written in the English language and published from January 2007 to November 2021, with a follow-up longer than 36 months, were included in the review. Data quality of available data sources identified was assessed in three groupings. Moreover, accepted data-driven methodologies that may help circumvent the limitations of the extracted studies and data sources were extracted and described. Results There were 39 studies and data sources identified. This included 19 randomized clinical trials, nine single-arm studies, eight registries, three administrative claims, and electronic health records. Methodologies focusing on the use of existing premarket clinical data, the incorporation of all contributed patient time, the use of aggregated data, approaches for individual-level data, machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches, Bayesian approaches, and the combination of various datasets were summarized. Conclusion Despite the multitude of available studies over the course of eleven years following the first clinical trial, the FDA-convened advisory panel found them insufficient for comprehensively assessing the late-mortality signal. High-quality data sources with the capabilities of employing advanced statistical methodologies are needed to detect potential safety signals in a timely manner and allow regulatory bodies to act quickly when a safety signal is detected

    Increased risk of falls and fractures in patients with psychosis and Parkinson disease.

    No full text
    ObjectiveEvaluate whether the risk of falls and fractures differs between patients with Parkinson disease with psychosis (PDP) and patients with Parkinson disease (PD) without psychosis at similar disease stages.MethodsPatients with PD without psychosis were identified in the Medicare claims databases (2008-2018) and followed from the first PD diagnosis date during the study period. Patients with a subsequent diagnosis of psychosis were included in the PDP group. Patients with PDP and PD without psychosis were propensity score-matched based on characteristics within blocks of time since cohort entry. The incidence rates (IRs), expressed per 100 person-years, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of falls and fractures were evaluated as composite and separate outcomes. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to compare patients with PDP and PD without psychosis in the matched cohort.Results154,306 patients had PD without psychosis and no falls or fractures before cohort entry; the IR for falls and fractures was 11.41 events (95% CI, 11.29-11.53). 12,127 patients (7.8%) had a subsequent PDP diagnosis. PDP patients had a higher prevalence of most comorbidities and risk factors for falls and fractures than those without psychosis. The crude IR for falls and fractures among PDP patients was 29.03 events (95% CI, 28.27-29.81). PD without psychosis and PDP groups had more falls than fractures. After matching, 24,144 PD patients without psychosis (15.6%) and 12,077 PDP patients (99.6%) were retained. Matched PDP patients had a higher incidence of falls and fractures than PD patients without psychosis (IRR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.39-1.49). The higher increased rate was noted separately for falls (IRR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.43-1.54) and any fractures (IRR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.27) as well as within specific types of fracture, including pelvis and hip fractures.ConclusionsOur findings suggest a modest but consistently higher increased risk of falls and fractures in PDP patients compared with PD patients without psychosis

    Assessment of Codispensing Patterns of Mirabegron and Prespecified CYP2D6 Substrates in Patients with Overactive Bladder

    No full text
    Abstract Background Patients with overactive bladder (OAB) experience sudden, intense urges to urinate, which may include urge urinary incontinence and nocturia. Pharmacotherapy includes β3-adrenergic receptor agonists such as mirabegron; however, mirabegron contains a label warning for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 inhibition, making coadministration with CYP2D6 substrates require monitoring and dose adjustment to avoid unintended increases in substrate concentration. Objective To understand the codispensing patterns of mirabegron among patients using ten predefined CYP2D6 substrates with and before mirabegron dispensing. Methods This retrospective claims database analysis used the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus Database to assess codispensing of mirabegron with ten predefined CYP2D6 substrate groups identified on the basis of medications most frequently prescribed in the United States, those with high susceptibility to CYP2D6 inhibition, and those with evidence for exposure-related toxicity. Patients had to be ≥ 18 years old before initiation of the CYP2D6 substrate episode that overlapped with mirabegron. The cohort entry period was November 2012 to September 2019, and the overall study period was 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2019. Comparisons of patient profiles at dispensing were made between time periods with and before mirabegron use in the same patient. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the number of exposure episodes, total duration of exposure, and median duration of exposure of CYP2D6 substrate dispensing with and before mirabegron. Results CYP2D6 substrate exposure periods totaling ≥ 9000 person-months were available before overlapping exposure to mirabegron for all ten CYP2D6 substrate cohorts. Median codispensing duration for chronically administered CYP2D6 substrates was 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 91) days for citalopram/escitalopram, 71 (105) days for duloxetine/venlafaxine, and 75 (115) days for metoprolol/carvedilol; median codispensing duration for acutely administered CYP2D6 substrates was 15 (33) days for tramadol and 9 (18) days for hydrocodone. Conclusions In this claims database analysis, the dispensing patterns of CYP2D6 substrates with mirabegron displayed frequent overlapping of exposure. Thus, a need exists to better understand the outcomes experienced by patients with OAB who are at increased risk for drug‒drug interactions when taking multiple CYP2D6 substrates concurrently with a CYP2D6 inhibitor

    From Clinical Phenotype to Genotypic Modelling: Incidence and Prevalence of Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (RDEB)

    Get PDF
    Background: Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is an inherited genetic disorder characterized by recurrent and chronic open wounds with significant morbidity, impaired quality of life, and early mortality. RDEB patients demonstrate reduction or structural alteration type VII collagen (C7) owing to mutations in the gene COL7A1, the main component of anchoring fibrils (AF) necessary to maintain epidermal-dermal cohesion. While over 700 alterations in COL7A1 have been reported to cause dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which may be inherited in an autosomal dominant (DDEB) or autosomal recessive pattern (RDEB), the incidence and prevalence of RDEB is not well defined. To date, the widely estimated incidence (0.2–6.65 per million births) and prevalence (3.5–20.4 - per million people) of RDEB has been primarily characterized by limited analyses of clinical databases or registries. Methods: Using a genetic modelling approach, we use whole exome and genome sequencing data to estimate the allele frequency of pathogenic variants. Through the ClinVar and NCBI database of human genome variants and phenotypes, DEB Register, and analyzing premature COL7A1 termination variants we built a model to predict the pathogenicity of previously unclassified variants. We applied the model to publicly available sequences from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) and Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) and identified variants which were classified as pathogenic for RDEB from which we estimate disease incidence and prevalence. Results: Genetic modelling applied to the whole exome and genome sequencing data resulted in the identification of predicted RDEB pathogenic alleles, from which our estimate of the incidence of RDEB is 95 per million live births, 30 times the 3.05 per million live birth incidence estimated by the National Epidermolysis Bullosa Registry (NEBR). Using a simulation approach, we estimate a mean of approximately 3,850 patients in the US who may benefit from COL7A1-mediated treatments in the US. Conclusion: We conclude that genetic allele frequency estimation may enhance the underdiagnosis of rare genetic diseases generally, and RDEB specifically, which may improve incidence and prevalence estimates of patients who may benefit from treatment

    Association Between Menorrhagia and Risk of Intrauterine Device-Related Uterine Perforation and Device Expulsion: Results from the APEX-IUD Study

    No full text
    Background Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and one levonorgestrel-releasing device is also indicated for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). Objective To compare the incidence of intrauterine device expulsion and uterine perforation in women with and without a diagnosis of menorrhagia within the 12 months before device insertion. Study Design Retrospective cohort study conducted in 3 integrated healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a healthcare information exchange (Regenstrief Institute) in the United States, using electronic health records. Nonpostpartum women aged ≤50 years with intrauterine device (e.g., levonorgestrel or copper) insertions from 2001–2018 without a delivery in the prior 12 months were studied in this analysis. Recent menorrhagia diagnosis (i.e., recorded ≤12 months before insertion) was ascertained from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Study outcomes—device expulsion and device-related uterine perforation (complete or partial)—were ascertained from electronic medical records and validated in data sources. Cumulative incidence and crude incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Cox proportional hazards models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios using propensity score overlap weighting (13-16 variables) and 95% confidence intervals. Results Among 228,834 nonpostpartum women, mean age was 33.1 years, 44.4% were White, and 31,600 (13.8%) had a recent menorrhagia diagnosis. Most women had a levonorgestrel-releasing device (96.4% of those with and 78.2% of those without a menorrhagia diagnosis). Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis were likely to be older, obese, and have dysmenorrhea or fibroids. Women with vs. without a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher intrauterine device expulsion rate (40.01 vs. 10.92 per 1,000 person-years), especially evident in the few months after insertion. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had higher cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of expulsion (7.00% [6.70%, 7.32%] at 1 year, 12.03% [11.52%, 12.55%] at 5 years) vs. without (1.77% [1.70%, 1.84%] at 1 year, 3.69% [3.56%, 3.83%] at 5 years). Risk of expulsion was increased for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs. without (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84 [95% confidence interval: 2.66, 3.03]). Perforation rate was low overall (<1/1,000 person-years) but higher in women with a diagnosis of menorrhagia vs. without (0.98 vs. 0.63 per 1,000 person-years). Cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of uterine perforation was slightly higher for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis (0.09% [0.06%, 0.14%] at 1 year, 0.39% [0.29%, 0.53%] at 5 years) vs. without (0.07% [0.06%, 0.08%], at 1 year, 0.28% [0.24%, 0.33%] at 5 years). Risk of perforation was slightly increased in women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs. without (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10, 2.13). Conclusion The risk of expulsion is significantly higher in women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia. Patient education and counseling regarding potential expulsion risk is recommended at insertion. The absolute risk of perforation for women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia is very low. Increased expulsion and perforation rates observed are likely due to causal factors of menorrhagia

    Association Between Intrauterine Device Type and Risk of Perforation and Device Expulsion: Results From the APEX-IUD Study

    No full text
    Background Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. Study Design The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente–integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. Results Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53–1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20–0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44–0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63–14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44–14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24–2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40–4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18–2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56–5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25–1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65–0.73) for expulsion. Conclusion After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful
    corecore