Validity of ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes used to identify acute liver injury: a study in three European data sources

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Forns, J. [et al.]. Validity of ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes used to identify acute liver injury: a study in three European data sources. "Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety", 6 Juny 2019, vol. 28, núm. 7, p. 965-975, which has been published in final form at 10.1002/pds.4803. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."Purpose Validating cases of acute liver injury (ALI) in health care data sources is challenging. Previous validation studies reported low positive predictive values (PPVs). Methods Case validation was undertaken in a study conducted from 2009 to 2014 assessing the risk of ALI in antidepressants users in databases in Spain (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and the Danish National Health Registers. Three ALI definitions were evaluated: primary (specific hospital discharge codes), secondary (specific and nonspecific hospital discharge codes), and tertiary (specific and nonspecific hospital and outpatient codes). The validation included review of patient profiles (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and of clinical data from medical records (EpiChron and Denmark). ALI cases were confirmed when liver enzyme values met a definition by an international working group. Results Overall PPVs (95% CIs) for the study ALI definitions were, for the primary ALI definition, 84% (60%-97%) (EpiChron), 60% (26%-88%) (SIDIAP), and 74% (60%-85%) (Denmark); for the secondary ALI definition, 65% (45%-81%) (EpiChron), 40% (19%-64%) (SIDIAP), and 70% (64%-77%) (Denmark); and for the tertiary ALI definition, 25% (18%-34%) (EpiChron), 8% (7%-9%) (SIDIAP), and 47% (42%-52%) (Denmark). The overall PPVs were higher for specific than for nonspecific codes and for hospital discharge than for outpatient codes. The nonspecific code “unspecified jaundice” had high PPVs in Denmark. Conclusions PPVs obtained apply to patients using antidepressants without preexisting liver disease or ALI risk factors. To maximize validity, studies on ALI should prioritize hospital specific discharge codes and should include hospital codes for unspecified jaundice. Case validation is required when ALI outpatient cases are considered.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

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

Identifying and assessing benefit–risk in primary care—a family physician’s perspective

For the family physician, NSAIDs, both traditional and cyclo-oxgenase-2 inhibitors, are a valuable contribution to managing arthritis and other rheumatological conditions in primary care. Yet, many of the patients seen by the family doctor have complex comorbidities and polypharmacy issues. This review looks at the main considerations for primary-care physicians while choosing an anti-inflammatory treatment for a hypothetical patient case study. In addition to looking at the evidence for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk, the concomitant use of aspirin with an NSAID is also examined. New evidence for interaction between selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors is reviewed and the interaction between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and NSAIDs is considered. Making careful judgements based on individual needs, medical history and comorbidities is recommended based on the evidence reviewed

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

A review of the gastrointestinal safety data—a gastroenterologist’s perspective

Although NSAIDs have a well-established place for certain indications in the management of OA and RA, they are associated with significant gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The risk of NSAID-related upper GI events, such as dyspepsia or peptic ulcer and complications such as perforation or bleeding, is well characterized. Non-selective NSAIDs increase the risk of peptic ulcer disease ∼5-fold, and that of upper GI bleeding 4-fold, whereas selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX) inhibitors are associated with a significantly lower GI toxicity than non-selective agents. There is evidence that, while the incidence of NSAID-related upper GI complications has decreased in recent years, that of lower GI complications is increasing. Observational studies and analyses from studies, primarily designed to investigate upper GI events, suggest that lower GI complications are relatively common in NSAID users and that COX-2 selective inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of these events. Such events have been poorly characterized, but are associated with significant mortality; indeed, they may have even more serious consequences than the better characterized upper GI events. There is thus a strong case for evaluating the impact of such complications in prospective outcome studies. To facilitate such studies a new endpoint, Clinically Significant Upper or Lower GI Events, has been introduced that captures both upper and lower GI events

Prescription Pattern of NSAIDs and the Prevalence of NSAID-induced Gastrointestinal Risk Factors of Orthopaedic Patients in Clinical Practice in Korea

This is a cross-sectional observational study undertaken to explore the current prescription pattern of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the prevalence of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal (GI) risk factors of orthopaedic patients in real clinical practice in Korea. Study cohort included 3,140 orthopaedic outpatients at 131 hospitals and clinics between January 2008 and August 2008. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by each patient and physician. A simplified risk scoring scale (the Standardized Calculator of Risk for Events; SCORE) was used to measure patients' risk for GI complications. The pattern of NSAIDs prescription was identified from medical recordings. Forty-five percents of the patients belonged to high risk or very high risk groups for GI complications. The cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme (COX-2) selective NSAID showed a propensity to be prescribed more commonly for high/very high GI risk groups, but the rate was still as low as 51%. In conclusion, physician's considerate prescription of NSAIDs with well-understanding of each patient's GI risk factors is strongly encouraged in order to maximize cost effectiveness and to prevent serious GI complications in Korea. Other strategic efforts such as medical association-led education programs and application of Korean electronic SCORE system to hospital order communication system (OCS) should also be accompanied in a way to promote physician's attention

A multinational, drug utilization study to investigate the use of dexmedetomidine (Dexdor (R)) in clinical practice in the EU

AIMSDexmedetomidine (dexdor (R)) is approved in the European Union (EU) for sedation of adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). The present observational, retrospective study was requested by the European Medicines Agency to investigate dexmedetomidine use in clinical practice, with a particular focus on off-label use, including the paediatric population.METHODSStudy countries and sites were chosen from those with highest dexmedetomidine use, based on sales. Site selection (blind) was conducted by a multispecialist, independent group. Anonymized data on demographics, treatment indication, dexmedetomidine dosing, concomitant medications and treatment effectiveness were collected retrospectively from records of all dexmedetomidine-treated patients at the site during the enrolment period. Informed consent was waived, to avoid influencing the prescribing of dexmedetomidine. Recruitment was completed within 18 months of first site initiation.RESULTSData from 2000 patients were collected from 16 hospitals in four EU countries (Finland 750, Poland 505, Germany 470, Austria 275). The median age was 62 years, with more males (70.2%) than females. Dexmedetomidine was primarily used in the adult ICU (86.0%) for ICU sedation (78.6%) and mostly dosed according the product label. The intended sedative effect was obtained in 84.9% of administrations. Paediatric use (5.9% of patients, mostly in Austria and Finland) occurred mainly in the adult or paediatric ICU (75.6%) for sedation (67.2%).CONCLUSIONSOverall, most patients were treated with dexmedetomidine according to the product labelling. Use in children was limited but significant and similar in scope to that in adults. Administrations not fully according to the product labelling usually occurred in an ICU environment and reflected extensively investigated clinical uses of dexmedetomidine

Risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation associated with low-dose aspirin as plain and enteric-coated formulations

BACKGROUND: The use of low-dose aspirin has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (UGIC). The coating of aspirin has been proposed as an approach to reduce such a risk. To test this hypothesis, we carried out a population based case-control study. METHODS: We identified incident cases of UGIC (bleeding or perforation) aged 40 to 79 years between April 1993 to October 1998 registered in the General Practice Research Database. Controls were selected randomly from the source population. Adjusted estimates of relative risk (RR) associated with current use of aspirin as compared to non use were computed using unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 2,105 cases of UGIC and selected 11,500 controls. Among them, 287 (13.6%) cases and 837 (7.3%) controls were exposed to aspirin, resulting in an adjusted RR of 2.0 (1.7-2.3). No clear dose-effect was found within the range of 75-300 mg. The RR associated with enteric-coated formulations (2.3, 1.6-3.2) was similar to the one of plain aspirin (1.9, 1.6-2.3), and no difference was observed depending on the site. The first two months of treatment was the period of greater risk (RR= 4.5, 2.9-7.1). The concomitant use of aspirin with high-dose NSAIDs greatly increased the risk of UGIC (13.3, 8.5-20.9) while no interaction was apparent with low-medium doses (2.2, 1.0-4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin increases by twofold the risk of UGIC in the general population and its coating does not modify the effect. Concomitant use of low-dose aspirin and NSAIDs at high doses put patients at a specially high risk of UGIC

P73 Preliminary results of the Study of Acute Liver Transplant (SALT): NSAID exposure and risk of acute liver failure leading to transplantation in 7 European countries

n/