Search

This cohort study uses health records data from France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US to examine the rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing among people with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Key Points: Question: Did the rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing among people with dementia increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? Findings: In this cohort study, data for 857 238 individuals with dementia diagnosis from 8 databases revealed that antipsychotic drug prescribing rates markedly increased in the initial months of the pandemic compared with corresponding months in 2019 in France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US and remained high in 2021. The most substantial increases were observed in the South Korea and UK databases. Meaning: The findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the care of people with dementia and that intervention strategies need to be developed to ensure the quality of care. Importance: Concerns have been raised that the use of antipsychotic medication for people living with dementia might have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To examine multinational trends in antipsychotic drug prescribing for people living with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational network cohort study used electronic health records and claims data from 8 databases in 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US) for individuals aged 65 years or older between January 1, 2016, and November 30, 2021. Two databases each were included for South Korea and the US. Exposures: The introduction of population-wide COVID-19 restrictions from April 2020 to the latest available date of each database. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were yearly and monthly incidence of dementia diagnosis and prevalence of people living with dementia who were prescribed antipsychotic drugs in each database. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify changes in prescribing rates before and after the introduction of population-wide COVID-19 restrictions. Results: A total of 857 238 people with dementia aged 65 years or older (58.0% female) were identified in 2016. Reductions in the incidence of dementia were observed in 7 databases in the early phase of the pandemic (April, May, and June 2020), with the most pronounced reduction observed in 1 of the 2 US databases (rate ratio [RR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32); reductions were also observed in the total number of people with dementia prescribed antipsychotic drugs in France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US. Rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing for people with dementia increased in 6 databases representing all countries. Compared with the corresponding month in 2019, the most pronounced increase in 2020 was observed in May in South Korea (Kangwon National University database) (RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-3.02) and June in the UK (RR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.09). The rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing in these 6 databases remained high in 2021. Interrupted time series analyses revealed immediate increases in the prescribing rate in Italy (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.58) and in the US Medicare database (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20-1.71) after the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found converging evidence that the rate of antipsychotic drug prescribing to people with dementia increased in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 6 countries studied and did not decrease to prepandemic levels after the acute phase of the pandemic had ended. These findings suggest that the pandemic disrupted the care of people living with dementia and that the development of intervention strategies is needed to ensure the quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An important component of a systematic strategy for safety surveillance is prospective identification of anticipated serious adverse events (SAEs). Developing a structured approach to identify anticipated events and estimating their incidence can help align the safety strategy and the safety surveillance efforts. Methods: We developed a novel approach to identify anticipated events for a hypothetical randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in subjects with bipolar disorder using the adverse events reported in the placebo arm of trials from the ClinicalTrials.gov database. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for all trials on bipolar depression with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria and study duration as our hypothetical study. The frequencies of anticipated events in placebo arms were abstracted from each trial and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Clopper–Pearson method. Meta-analysis with a random effects model was performed to obtain a summary estimate and 95% CI for the events identified in more than one trial. Results: A total of 129 clinical trials were initially identified, and 18 were ultimately selected as they met all the selection criteria. There were 69 unique anticipated SAEs identified, and 13 out of 69 were reported in at least 2 clinical trials. The top 5 anticipated SAEs for our study were: (1) hospitalization, psychiatric symptom (3.57%); (2) suicidal behavior, overdose (3.57%), (3) cholecystitis (2.86%); (4) fall (2.86%); (5) road traffic accident, injury (2.86%). Conclusion: We successfully identified the anticipated events from registered trials that included a population similar to our trial. This method for identifying anticipated events could be applied to other disease areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports suggest low levels of cholesterol are associated with depression. However, results have not been replicated, the direction of the associations among types of cholesterol levels is not consistent, there is large study heterogeneity, and many studies have small samples. The objective of the study was to assess the association of cholesterol with depression. This is a cross-sectional study using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The NHANES is a research program that collects health information from a representative U.S. sample. We included subjects aged ≥18 years who responded to NHANES surveys from 2009 to 2015. Subjects were classified as having major depression if the Patient Health Questionnaire scores were ≥10. Exposures were total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels. We considered the age, body mass index, gender, smoking, alcohol use, health status, and exposure to statins and antipsychotics as potential confounders. To assess the association of the exposures with depression, we used decision tree and logistic regression models. A total of 19,527 subjects were analyzed, and 8% had depression. Subjects with depression were more likely to be women and smokers, and to have higher body mass index, poor health, higher levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides and lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol than subjects with no depression. After adjustment, low levels of total cholesterol (<129 mg/dL) were associated with decreased risk of depression compared with higher levels, OR = 0.64 and 95% CI (0.42–0.98). This large population-based study found no association of low cholesterol or any other lower type of cholesterol levels with increased risk of depression. These findings are generalizable to the U.S. population. • Controversy on whether low levels of cholesterol are associated with depression. • Population-based study to assess the association of cholesterol with depression. • No association of low cholesterol with increased risk of depression. • These findings are generalizable to the U.S. population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among patients with chronic pain using long-term opioid therapy, the incidence of opioid abuse, addiction, overdose, and associated death are not well quantified. The range of estimates for these adverse outcomes varies drastically and may depend on how they are measured (i.e. study definitions of outcomes) and on patient characteristics and opioid-use factors (e.g. regimen, daily dose).Methods: Based on a review of the literature, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required companies that manufacture and sell extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids conduct as a postmarketing requirement (PMR) a series of observational studies to estimate the rates of treatment-emergent misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose, and death using validated measures. The companies formed a consortium, the Opioid PMR Consortium (OPC), to conduct the studies.Results: The FDA initially requested four observational studies (a cohort study, a questionnaire validation study, a code validation study, and a doctor-shopping validation study), but in order to achieve the FDA's goals of the 4 studies, OPC and FDA agreed to 10 observational studies (a prospective cohort study, a retrospective database cohort study, three questionnaire validation studies, two code validation studies, and three doctor-shopping validation studies). The studies are continuing through 2020.Conclusions: A series of 10 observational studies was or are being conducted in response to the FDA's postmarketing requirement. All studies have been feasible to conduct, although a validated algorithm for measuring abuse and addiction in databases was not successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have examined associations of geographically proximal cigarette prices with within-person changes in smoking outcomes or assessed interactions between cigarette prices and smoking bans.Methods: We linked neighborhood cigarette prices (inflation-adjusted) at chain supermarkets and drug stores and bar/restaurant smoking ban policies to cohort participants (632 smokers from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, 2001-2012, baseline mean age 58 years) using geocoded retailer and participant addresses. We used fixed-effects models to investigate associations of within-person changes in price and ban exposures with within-person changes in five smoking outcomes: current smoking, heavy (≥10 cigarettes) smoking, cessation, relapse, and intensity (average number of cigarettes smoked per day, natural log transformed). We assessed intensity associations among all smokers, and heavy (≥10 cigarettes per day) and light (<10) baseline smokers. Finally, we tested interactions between cigarette price and bans.Results: A $1 increase in price was associated with a 3% reduction in risk of current smoking (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.93, 1.0), a 7% reduction in risk of heavy smoking (aRR: 0.93; CI = 0.87, 0.99), a 20% increase in risk of smoking cessation (aRR: 1.2; CI = 0.99, 1.4), and a 35% reduction in the average number of cigarettes smoked per day by heavy baseline smokers (ratio of geometric means: 0.65; CI = 0.45, 0.93). We found no association between smoking bans and outcomes, and no evidence that price effects were modified by the presence of bans.Conclusions: Results underscore the importance of local prices, but not hospitality smoking bans, in influencing older adults' smoking behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Evidence of poor patient adherence to medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is well-documented, but its impact on disease exacerbation rates and associated healthcare costs remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between adherence levels to different inhaled corticosteroid/ long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA) and COPD exacerbation rates and costs in a commercially insured population. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years) who were treatment-naïve to inhaled corticosteroid/LABA and were initiating budesonide plus formoterol or fluticasone plus salmeterol between March 1, 2009, and January 31, 2014, were identified in a national representative claims database and were followed for up to 12 months. The date of the first prescription fill for either drug was defined as the index date. Patients were divided into 4 cohorts based on adherence to the index therapy, which was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC); the cohorts were classified as adherent (PDC ≥0.8), mildly nonadherent (0.5 ≤ PDC <0.8), moderately nonadherent (0.3 ≤ PDC <0.5), and highly nonadherent (PDC <0.3). Each nonadherent group was matched in a 1:1 ratio to the adherent group independently, based on prognostically important variables, using propensity score analyses. Exacerbation rates and healthcare costs were analyzed for 1 year after treatment initiation. RESULTS: During the study period, 13,657 eligible patients with COPD initiated inhaled corticosteroid/ LABA; of these, only 1898 (13.9%) patients were adherent during follow-up. Group matching resulted in 1572 patients per group for comparison 1 (adherent vs mildly nonadherent), 1604 patients for comparison 2 (adherent vs moderately nonadherent), and 1755 patients for comparison 3 (adherent vs highly nonadherent). The moderately and highly nonadherent cohorts had higher exacerbation rates than the adherent patients (comparison 2: rate ratio [RR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.21; P = .03; comparison 3: RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .02). Adherent patients incurred significantly lower healthcare costs than all the nonadherent groups (comparison 1, $22,671 vs $25,545; P <.01; comparison 2, $22,508 vs $24,303; P <.01; comparison 3, $22,460 vs $25,148; P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients adhered to their inhaled corticosteroid/LABA treatments had lower COPD exacerbation rates and lower healthcare costs compared with the moderately and highly nonadherent patients. Better adherence to maintenance therapies may help to reduce the clinical and economic burdens of COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Opioids are widely accepted as treatment for moderate to severe pain, and opioid-induced constipation is one of the most common side effects of opioids. This side effect negatively affects pain management and patients' quality of life, which could result in increased healthcare utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare utilization and costs (all-cause, constipation-related, and pain-related) for individuals with and without opioid-induced constipation during the 12 months after initiation of opioid therapy for noncancer pain. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from HealthCore Integrated Research Environment between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2014. The analysis was limited to patients aged ≥18 years who filled a prescription for continuous opioid treatment (≥28 days) for noncancer pain. Propensity scores were used to match opioid users with constipation (cohort 1) and opioid users without constipation (cohort 2), using a 1:1 ratio. Generalized linear models were used to estimate all-cause, constipation-related, and pain-related healthcare utilization and costs during the 12 months after the initiation of opioid therapy. RESULTS: After matching and balancing for all prespecified variables, 17,384 patients were retained in each cohort (mean age, 56 years; 63% female). Opioid users with constipation were twice as likely as those without constipation to have ≥1 inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17-2.39) during the 12 months. The total mean adjusted overall costs per patient during the study period were $12,413 higher for patients with constipation versus those without it (95% CI, $11,726-$13,116). The total mean adjusted overall pain-related costs per patient were $6778 (95% CI, $6293-$7279) higher for the patients with constipation than those without. Among patients using opioids for noncancer pain, the annual mean constipation-related costs per patient totaled $4646 (total average plan-paid costs, $4424; total patient-paid costs, $222). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using opioids with newly diagnosed constipation had significantly greater healthcare utilization and costs than patients without constipation; these costs accounted for approximately 16% of the total healthcare costs per patient during the 12-month study period. Recognition and effective treatment of opioid-induced constipation may decrease healthcare utilization for patients with chronic noncancer pain and may reduce the economic burden of pain therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Back ground: For high-risk patients who do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels, more intensive treatment including statin-uptitration to higher doses or potency, as well as combination therapy may be considered. A better understanding of statin treatment patterns in real-world clinical practice may contribute to improved lipid-lowering management in these patients. Objective: We determined treatment pattern changes among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal on statin monotherapy. Methods: Treatment pattern changes were evaluated among patients newly initiated on statins between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2009, in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Rates and mean time to first and second treatment changes were examined in patients with claims for coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), and diabetes mellitus during 12 months before index, who were not at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at their first-eligible LDL-C test (≥4 weeks after index). Therapy change was assessed for 12 months after the LDL-C result. Results: Of 11,473 eligible subjects, 61.3% had diabetes, 26.6% had CHD and AVD, and 12.1% had CHD and AVD and diabetes. At index, patients were prescribed medium-potency levels of statins, including simvastatin (44.7%), atorvastatin (31.5%), and other statins (23.8%). Mean ± SD LDL-C before statin initiation was 138 ± 34 mg/dL, and at the first-eligible LDL-C result after index, it was 101 ± 25 mg/dL. During follow-up, 7444 subjects (64.9%) experienced a first treatment change, with mean time to change of 93.8 ± 92 days, whereas 4029 (36.1%) had no treatment change. Discontinuation of index therapy occurred in 46.9% of subjects and medication switches or titration in 18.0% (index statin titration, switch to other statins, other lipid-lowering therapies [LLT], including ezetimibe). Of the discontinuers, 27.4% restarted LLT. Of subjects with a first treatment change who did not discontinue, 48.9% experienced a second therapy change. Results were similar between the 3 high-risk groups. Conclusions: In this managed-care setting, among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at LDL-C goal, statins were usually started at medium-potency doses without being titrated up, whereas nearly one-half had a discontinuation of LLT within 12 months. These treatment patterns indicate the need for better patient and provider education as well as other system-wide modifications to improve medication adherence. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]