Serious cardiovascular adverse events with fluoroquinolones versus other antibiotics: A self-controlled case series analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between fluoroquinolone (FQ) use and the occurrence of aortic aneurysm/dissection (AA/AD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ventricular arrhythmias (VenA), and all-cause mortality vs other commonly used antibiotics. We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis of patients who experienced the outcomes of AA/AD, AMI, and VenA, based on diagnosis codes from emergency department visits and hospitalizations within Veterans Health Administration, and death in FY2014-FY2018. These Veterans also received outpatient prescriptions for FQs. Conditional Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between FQs and each of the outcomes vs antibiotics of interest (ie amoxicillin or amoxicillin/clavulanate, azithromycin, doxycycline, cefuroxime or cephalexin, or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim), adjusted for time-varying covariates. Using a 30-day risk period after each antibiotic prescription, adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) for FQs vs each comparator antibiotic were not statistically different for outcomes of VenA or AMI. For AA/AD, incidence was higher during FQ risk periods vs amoxicillin [aIRR 1.50 (95% CI 1.01, 2.25)] and azithromycin [aIRR 2.15 (95% CI 1.27, 3.64)] risk periods. A significantly increased risk of mortality was observed with FQs vs each antibiotic of interest. FQs were associated with an increased risk of AA/AD vs amoxicillin and azithromycin and an increased risk of all-cause mortality vs multiple antibiotics commonly used for outpatient infections. Although the differences in event rates are small, FQ use should be limited to serious infections without appropriate alternatives

Serious cardiovascular adverse events with fluoroquinolones versus other antibiotics: A self-controlled case series analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between fluoroquinolone (FQ) use and the occurrence of aortic aneurysm/dissection (AA/AD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ventricular arrhythmias (VenA), and all-cause mortality vs other commonly used antibiotics. We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis of patients who experienced the outcomes of AA/AD, AMI, and VenA, based on diagnosis codes from emergency department visits and hospitalizations within Veterans Health Administration, and death in FY2014-FY2018. These Veterans also received outpatient prescriptions for FQs. Conditional Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between FQs and each of the outcomes vs antibiotics of interest (ie amoxicillin or amoxicillin/clavulanate, azithromycin, doxycycline, cefuroxime or cephalexin, or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim), adjusted for time-varying covariates. Using a 30-day risk period after each antibiotic prescription, adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) for FQs vs each comparator antibiotic were not statistically different for outcomes of VenA or AMI. For AA/AD, incidence was higher during FQ risk periods vs amoxicillin [aIRR 1.50 (95% CI 1.01, 2.25)] and azithromycin [aIRR 2.15 (95% CI 1.27, 3.64)] risk periods. A significantly increased risk of mortality was observed with FQs vs each antibiotic of interest. FQs were associated with an increased risk of AA/AD vs amoxicillin and azithromycin and an increased risk of all-cause mortality vs multiple antibiotics commonly used for outpatient infections. Although the differences in event rates are small, FQ use should be limited to serious infections without appropriate alternatives

Treatment Patterns, Effectiveness, and Safety of Originator Insulin Glargine versus Insulin Glargine-yfgn within the Veterans Health Administration

We described insulin glargine (originator) and insulin glargine-yfgn (biosimilar) treatment patterns, assessed effectiveness and safety outcomes, and identified reasons for switching back to the originator product from the biosimilar. This retrospective study included 328,463 Veterans 18 years of age and older who received one or more outpatient prescriptions for insulin glargine and/or insulin glargine-yfgn between 1 June 2021 and 31 December 2022. Patients were assigned to subgroups based on the initial prescription during the study period, prevalent versus incident use for originator insulin glargine, and prior versus no prior use of the originator before the biosimilar (i.e., prevalent originator non-switcher (n = 189,734), originator switch to biosimilar (n = 81,010), incident originator non-switcher (n = 49,401), and incident biosimilar (n = 8318)). There were no differences in the outcome of mean HbA1c (7.9% for all subgroups). There were also no differences in the unadjusted rates of hospitalization and/or emergency room visits for hyper- and hypoglycemia between the prevalent originator non-switcher and originator switched to biosimilar subgroups (p = 0.09 and 0.38, respectively) or the incident originator non-switcher and incident biosimilar subgroups (p = 0.054 and 0.61, respectively). Finally, none of the HbA1c or hyperglycemia outcomes adjusted for baseline characteristics were statistically different. Adjusted analyses for rates of hospitalization and/or emergency room visits for hypoglycemia could not be performed due to the low number of events. Overall, patients who received insulin glargine-yfgn had similar effectiveness and safety outcomes as patients who received the originator

Pharmacy Benefits Management in the Veterans Health Administration Revisited: A Decade of Advancements, 2004-2014.

UnlabelledOver the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (PBM) has enhanced its formulary management activities and added programs to ensure that the national drug plan continues to meet the pharmacy needs of veterans and to promote safe and appropriate drug therapy in the face of rising medication expenditures. This article describes the broad range of services provided by the VA PBM that work in partnership to deliver a high-quality and sustainable pharmacy benefit for veterans. In support of formulary management, VA PBM pharmacists prepare extensive clinical guidance documents (e.g., drug monographs and criteria for use) that are used by physicians and pharmacists with operational and clinical oversight of the VA national formulary. The VA PBM has utilized various contracting techniques and continually evaluates drug utilization data to identify opportunities for potential savings. Remarkably, since before 2004, the average acquisition cost for a 1-month supply of medication has remained fairly stable at approximately $13-$15. Two new VA PBM programs are the VA Center for Medication Safety (VA MedSAFE) and the Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office (CPPO). VA MedSAFE is a comprehensive pharmacovigilance program focused on the detection, assessment, and prevention of adverse drug events, and CPPO is dedicated to improving safe and appropriate medication use by supporting and expanding clinical pharmacy practice. Moving forward, the VA PBM will consider new initiatives to stay at the forefront of providing quality care while maintaining economic viability.DisclosuresNo outside funding supported this research. This work was supported by VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (VA PBM), Hines, Illinois, and VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Glassman is co-director of the VA Center for Medication Safety, which is part of the VA PBM. He is also part of the Medical Advisory Panel for the VA PMB. All other authors are employed by the VA PBM. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs or the U.S. government is intended or should be inferred. Study concept and design were contributed by Valentino, Cunningham, Good, Aspinall, and Sales. Calabrese and Ourth took the lead in data collection, along with Good, Cunningham, Aspinall, Sales, Burk, Moore, Neuhauser, and Golterman. Data interpretation was performed by Burk, Newhauser, and Golterman, along with Glassman, Calabrese, Moore, and Ourth. The manuscript was written by Aspinall and Sales, along with Burk, Newhauser, Golterman, Ourth, and Cunningham. Good, Glassman, and Moore revised the manuscript, along with Calabrese, Valentino, and Aspinall

Pharmacy Benefits Management in the Veterans Health Administration Revisited: A Decade of Advancements, 2004-2014.

Over the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (PBM) has enhanced its formulary management activities and added programs to ensure that the national drug plan continues to meet the pharmacy needs of veterans and to promote safe and appropriate drug therapy in the face of rising medication expenditures. This article describes the broad range of services provided by the VA PBM that work in partnership to deliver a high-quality and sustainable pharmacy benefit for veterans. In support of formulary management, VA PBM pharmacists prepare extensive clinical guidance documents (e.g., drug monographs and criteria for use) that are used by physicians and pharmacists with operational and clinical oversight of the VA national formulary. The VA PBM has utilized various contracting techniques and continually evaluates drug utilization data to identify opportunities for potential savings. Remarkably, since before 2004, the average acquisition cost for a 1-month supply of medication has remained fairly stable at approximately $13-$15. Two new VA PBM programs are the VA Center for Medication Safety (VA MedSAFE) and the Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office (CPPO). VA MedSAFE is a comprehensive pharmacovigilance program focused on the detection, assessment, and prevention of adverse drug events, and CPPO is dedicated to improving safe and appropriate medication use by supporting and expanding clinical pharmacy practice. Moving forward, the VA PBM will consider new initiatives to stay at the forefront of providing quality care while maintaining economic viability.DisclosuresNo outside funding supported this research. This work was supported by VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (VA PBM), Hines, Illinois, and VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Glassman is co-director of the VA Center for Medication Safety, which is part of the VA PBM. He is also part of the Medical Advisory Panel for the VA PMB. All other authors are employed by the VA PBM. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs or the U.S. government is intended or should be inferred. Study concept and design were contributed by Valentino, Cunningham, Good, Aspinall, and Sales. Calabrese and Ourth took the lead in data collection, along with Good, Cunningham, Aspinall, Sales, Burk, Moore, Neuhauser, and Golterman. Data interpretation was performed by Burk, Newhauser, and Golterman, along with Glassman, Calabrese, Moore, and Ourth. The manuscript was written by Aspinall and Sales, along with Burk, Newhauser, Golterman, Ourth, and Cunningham. Good, Glassman, and Moore revised the manuscript, along with Calabrese, Valentino, and Aspinall

Use of targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the Veterans Health Administration

Abstract Background The objective of this study is to describe the use of targeted therapies for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and overall survival (OS) among patients in clinical practice in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Methods A retrospective cohort of 286 patients from 24 VHA Medical Centers diagnosed with advanced clear cell RCC between Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 and FY2014 was followed through September 30, 2016. Among patients who received targeted therapy, we described the medications taken, duration of therapy, and overall survival. We also assessed the effect of the first therapy received on overall survival using Cox Proportional Hazards models. Results There were 66 patients who did not receive therapy for their advanced RCC. Of the 220 treated patients, the mean (sd) number of medications received was 1.9 (1.1). The medications most commonly used first were sunitinib (61.8%), pazopanib (17.3%), and temsirolimus (10.9%). The median duration of first‐line therapy was 86 days (interquartile range [IQR] 42, 210). Median total duration of therapy was 159 days (IQR 58, 397). 62.3% of patients had ≥ 1 dose of therapy held or reduced, mainly due to an adverse drug event (ADE). Median survival from the start of treatment to death was 1.08 years (IQR 0.80, 1.31). Finally, receipt of temsirolimus vs sunitinib (HR 1.95 [95%CI 1.09,3.47]) as the first targeted therapy was independently associated with an increased hazard of death. Conclusion Our analysis of targeted therapies for advanced RCC in VHA suggests duration of treatment is shorter in a real‐world setting than in clinical trials, and dose reductions and ADEs are more common