Drugs - Real World Outcomes最新文献

Introduction: Statins and fibrates are important means of preventing cardiovascular diseases, particularly when administered in combination as part of various therapeutic strategies. In this study, we explored the risks associated with various combinations of these drugs.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the risk of 1-year hospitalization with acute kidney injury, liver injury, pancreatitis, or rhabdomyolysis related to the concurrent administration of statins and fibrates.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Shizuoka Kokuho Database, focusing on patients prescribed statins, fibrates, or a combination. Four drug exposure patterns were evaluated: adding statins to fibrates (exposure 1), switching from fibrates to statins (exposure 2), adding fibrates to statins (exposure 3), and switching from statins to fibrates (exposure 4). Hospitalization for the specified conditions within 1 year was the outcome. Propensity score matching was used to create balanced cohorts for comparison.

Results: We studied 269,226 statin users and 16,282 fibrate users. After propensity score matching, there were 498 participants in the group of exposure 1, matched with 2988 in the fibrate-only group; 1180 in the group of exposure 2, matched with 7080 in the fibrate-only group; 1183 in group of exposure 3, matched with 11,830 in the statin only group; and 1356 in group of exposure 4, matched with 13,560 in the statin only group. The 1-year hospitalization rate with liver injury was higher in the group of exposure 1 than in the fibrate-only group (1.2% vs 0.3%, p < 0.01), in the group of exposure 2 than in the fibrate-only group (0.9% vs 0.3%, p < 0.01), and in the group of exposure 4 than in the statin-only group (0.6% vs 0.2%, p = 0.02). There was also a higher risk of 1-year hospitalization with acute kidney injury in group of exposure 1 than in the fibrate-only group (1.3% vs 0.3%, p = 0.01) but not in evaluations of exposure 2, 3, and 4. However, there were no differences in the risks of 1-year hospitalization with pancreatitis or rhabdomyolysis among the matched groups.

Conclusions: We have demonstrated higher risks of 1-year hospitalization with liver injury or acute kidney injury associated with the use of combinations of statins and fibrates. This underscores the need for a cautious approach to the prescribing of such drug combinations and the importance of monitoring patients for potential adverse events.

Background: Japanese traditional (Kampo) medicines containing ephedra may be used to treat colds during pregnancy. There are reports that ephedrine, a component of ephedra, has a risk of teratogenicity; however, the evidence remains equivocal.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of major congenital malformations (MCMs) associated with exposure to Kampo medicines containing ephedra during the first trimester of pregnancy using the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study (TMM BirThree Cohort Study).

Methods: To 23,730 mother-infant pairs who participated in the TMM BirThree Cohort Study from July 2013 to March 2017, questionnaires in early and middle pregnancy were distributed approximately at weeks 12 and 26 of pregnancy, respectively. Infants' risk of MCMs in women who used Kampo medicines containing ephedra or acetaminophen during the first trimester was assessed, and the odds ratios (ORs) were estimated with unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

Results: Among 20,879 women, acetaminophen and Kampo medicines containing ephedra were used in 665 (3.19%) and 376 (1.80%) women, respectively, in the first trimester. Among the infants born to the mothers who used acetaminophen or Kampo medicine containing ephedra during the first trimester, 11 (1.65%) and 8 (2.13%), respectively, had overall MCMs. OR of overall MCMs was higher in women who used Kampo medicines containing ephedra than in those who used acetaminophen in the first trimester (adjusted OR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CIs), 0.57-3.71); however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: In this study, there was no statistically significant association between the use of Kampo medicines containing ephedra during the first trimester of pregnancy and the risk of MCMs. Although some point estimates of ORs exceeded 1.00, the absolute magnitude of any increased risks would be low.

Background and objective: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia results in substantial morbidity and mortality. As current treatments often lead to unsatisfactory outcomes, evidence guiding alternative treatment options is needed. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of MRSA bacteremia.

Methods: This retrospective study included adults hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia between 2011 and 2019. Patients were classified according to treatment with ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline), vancomycin, or daptomycin: Group 1, ceftaroline; Group 2, vancomycin or daptomycin (without ceftaroline); Group 3, combination therapy with ≥ 2 of these three agents. Clinical outcomes were compared using propensity-score-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models.

Results: Overall, 24,479 patients were included (Group 1, n = 532; Group 2, n = 21,555; Group 3, n = 2392). Mean age was 59.6, 60.8, and 57.4 years in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean post-index treatment length of stay was 8.8, 8.8, and 8.0 days, respectively. The most frequent line of therapy was ceftaroline first-line (42.1%), vancomycin or daptomycin first-line (95.4%), and combination therapy third-line or later (67.8%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Compared with Group 2, Groups 1 and 3 had similar favorable clinical responses {odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.44], p = 0.08; OR = 1.20 [95% CI 0.97-1.47], p = 0.09, respectively} and were less likely to switch treatment (both p < 0.001). Compared with Group 2, Group 1 was more likely to undergo 30-day all-cause readmission [OR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.80), p = 0.02], whereas this was less likely for Group 3 [OR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), p = 0.05].

Conclusions: Patients receiving ceftaroline more often had favorable clinical responses than those receiving vancomycin or daptomycin monotherapy. In the absence of large-scale randomized controlled trials, these real-world data provide insights into the potential role of ceftaroline for treating MRSA bacteremia.

Background and objective: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors cabozantinib and axitinib have been widely used in England to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma following prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy, but data on real-world usage remain limited. Our objective was to describe the real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received second-line or later-line (≥ 2L) cabozantinib or axitinib after vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in clinical practice in England.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used clinical practice data (collected 2011-20) from the English Cancer Analysis System database. Patient characteristics, treatment sequence and duration, and overall survival (time from initiation of cabozantinib/axitinib treatment to death) were evaluated.

Results: Data from 1485 eligible adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma were analyzed: 440 received ≥  2L cabozantinib (2L for 88.6% of them); 1045 received ≥  2L axitinib (2L for 89.5%). The most common first-line treatments were sunitinib (2L cabozantinib subcohort, 48%; 2L axitinib subcohort, 46%) and pazopanib (46% and 54%, respectively); nivolumab was the most common third-line treatment (18% and 19%, respectively). Median (interquartile range) 2L therapy duration was 5.52 (2.73-11.74) months for cabozantinib and 4.60 (1.45-12.36) months for axitinib. Following adjustment for potential confounders using inverse probability weighting, overall survival (median [interquartile range]) was longer for ≥ 2L cabozantinib (11.2 [5.7-28.0] months) than for ≥  2L axitinib (10.4 [4.7-22.0] months; log-rank p = 0.0034).

Conclusions: The Cancer Analysis System database is a valuable research resource providing extensive real-world clinical data. Real-world overall survival was longer with ≥  2L cabozantinib than with axitinib.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04637204; registered November 2020.

Background: Many patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have moderate-to-severe persistent AR. Meda Pharma's AzeFlu (MP-AzeFlu^®) is an intranasal AR treatment comprising a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single device.

Methods: This prospective observational study of 214 adults and adolescents in Austria with moderate-to-severe persistent AR assessed the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (one spray/nostril twice daily; daily doses: azelastine hydrochloride 548 μg; and fluticasone propionate 200 μg) for AR control in clinical practice using the visual analog scale. Symptom severity was reported on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42. Patient demographics, AR phenotype, allergen sensitization, symptomatology, AR treatments in the previous year, and the reason for the MP-AzeFlu prescription were recorded.

Results: MP-AzeFlu treatment was associated with a rapid and statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale score from baseline to each timepoint measured, including day 1 (all p < 0.0001). Mean (standard deviation) visual analog scale score was 53.5 mm (26.3) at baseline, 25.3 mm (21.0) on day 28, and 19.6 mm (17.4) on day 42, a mean overall reduction from baseline of 41.4 (23.9) mm for completers. Results were consistent irrespective of patient age, gender, severity, or traditional AR phenotype. Prior to MP-AzeFlu prescription, congestion was considered the most bothersome symptom. The majority of patients reported using at least two AR therapies in the past year, including oral antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and intranasal antihistamines.

Conclusions: Many patients in Austria live with uncontrolled persistent AR despite treatment. MP-AzeFlu provides effective and rapid control of persistent AR in a real-world Austrian setting.

Background: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), since their introduction in 1990, have revolutionized the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Newer DMARDs have recently been approved, influencing treatment patterns and clinical guidelines.

Objective: To update the current prescribing patterns of DMARDs in the pharmacotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to include the pandemic era.

Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional multi-year study. Using Optum's Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, we summarized trends in the prevalence of DMARD use in the USA from 2016 to 2021 by year for adult patients ≥ 18 years old with at least one medical RA claim and one pharmacy/medical claim of a DMARD medication. Trends included type of DMARD, class of DMARD (conventional (csDMARDs), biologics [tumor necrosis factor (TNFi) and Non-TNFi), and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKs)], and triple therapy [methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), sulfasalazine (SUL)] used.

Results: The total sample from 2016 to 2021 was 670,679 commercially insured patients. The average age was 63.7 years (SD 13.6), and 76.7% were female and 70% were White. csDMARDs remain the most prescribed (ranging from 77.2 to 79.2%). Although JAKs were the least prescribed DMARD class, their proportion more than doubled from 2016 (1.5%) to 2021 (4%). MTX utilization declined from 40% in 2016 to 34% in 2021. In contrast, HCQ use increased during the pandemic era from < 25% in 2018 to 30% in 2021. Although there is evidence of the therapeutic benefit of triple therapy, its use was very low (~ 1%) compared to biologics only (~ 17%) or biologics+MTX (~ 10%).

Conclusion: About half of patients with RA were on DMARDs. As expected, csDMARDs were highly used consistently. The COVID-19 pandemic might have influenced the use of HCQ and infusion DMARDs. Triple therapy use remains low.

Background: Abnormal behavior after oseltamivir administration has been reported in the media; in 2007, the package insert for oseltamivir phosphate was revised to restrict its administration to individuals aged over 10 years. However, in 2018, the age limitation specified in the package insert was removed. Here, we evaluated the trends in anti-influenza drug prescription and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in pediatric outpatients after revising the oseltamivir package insert as an ecological study.

Methods: Anti-influenza drug prescriptions for pediatric outpatients with influenza aged 0-19 years were downloaded from the acute Diagnosis Procedure Combination hospital databases using the MDV analyzer^®. ADR reports on anti-influenza drug prescription among patients aged 0-20 years in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database were downloaded from the Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency website. Data were collected during the 2016/2017 and 2019/2020 influenza seasons.

Results: During the influenza epidemic season (January-March), the percentage of oseltamivir prescriptions for patients with influenza aged 10-19 years tripled after the revision of the oseltamivir package insert (9.3% during the 2016/2017 season and 29.2% during the 2019/2020 season); however, reports of abnormal behavior did not increase (two during the 2016/2017 season and none during the 2019/2020 season).

Conclusions: The number of oseltamivir-related ADR reports among minors over 10 years of age did not increase although the proportion of oseltamivir prescriptions increased after the revision of the oseltamivir package insert.