Search

Objective To compare patterns in use of different antiemetics during pregnancy in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, between 2002 and 2014. Methods We constructed population-based cohorts of pregnant women using administrative healthcare data from five Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Saskatchewan), the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from the United Kingdom, and the IBM MarketScan Research Databases from the United States. We included pregnancies ending in live births, stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion. We determined maternal use of antiemetics from pharmacy claims in Canada and the United States and from prescriptions in the United Kingdom. Results The most common outcome of 3 848 734 included pregnancies (started 2002–2014) was live birth (66.7% of all pregnancies) followed by spontaneous abortion (20.2%). Use of antiemetics during pregnancy increased over time in all three countries. Canada had the highest prevalence of use of prescription antiemetics during pregnancy (17.7% of pregnancies overall, 13.2% of pregnancies in 2002, and 18.9% in 2014), followed by the United States (14.0% overall, 8.9% in 2007, and 18.1% in 2014), and the United Kingdom (5.0% overall, 4.2% in 2002, and 6.5% in 2014). Besides use of antiemetic drugs being considerably lower in the United Kingdom, the increase in its use over time was more modest. The most commonly used antiemetic was combination doxylamine/pyridoxine in Canada (95.2% of pregnancies treated with antiemetics), ondansetron in the United States (72.2%), and prochlorperazine in the United Kingdom (63.5%). Conclusions In this large cohort study, we observed an overall increase in antiemetic use during pregnancy, and patterns of use varied across jurisdictions. Continued monitoring of antiemetic use and further research are warranted to better understand the reasons for differences in use of these medications and to assess their benefit-risk profile in this population.

OBJECTIVE:To compare persistence with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) antagonists among rheumatoid arthritis patients in British Columbia. Treatment persistence has been suggested as a proxy for real-world therapeutic benefit and harm of treatments for chronic non-curable diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. We hypothesized that the different pharmacological characteristics of infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept cause statistically and clinically significant differences in persistence. METHODS:We conducted a population-based cohort study using administrative health data from the Canadian province of British Columbia. The study cohort included rheumatoid arthritis patients who initiated the first course of a TNF antagonist between 2001 and 2008. Persistence was measured as the time between first dispensing to discontinuation. Drug discontinuation was defined as a drug-free interval of 180 days or switching to another TNF antagonist, anakinra, rituximab or abatacept. Persistence was estimated and compared using survival analysis. RESULTS:The study cohort included 2,923 patients, 63% treated with etanercept. Median persistence in years (95% confidence interval) with infliximab was 3.7 (2.9-4.9), with adalimumab 3.3 (2.6-4.1) and with etanercept 3.8 (3.3-4.3). Similar risk of discontinuation was observed for the three drugs: the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.98 (0.85-1.13) comparing infliximab with etanercept, 0.95 (0.78-1.15) comparing infliximab with adalimumab and 1.04 (0.88-1.22) comparing adalimumab with etanercept. CONCLUSIONS:Similar persistence was observed with infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis patients during the first 9 years of use. If treatment persistence is a good proxy for the therapeutic benefit and harm of these drugs, then this finding suggests that the three drugs share an overall similar benefit-harm profile in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168005.].

We did a systematic review of studies comparing discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, pooled hazard ratios and assessed clinical and methodological heterogeneity.We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE until June 2015 for pairwise hazard ratios for discontinuing infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab from cohorts of RA patients. Hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance weighting and random effects estimates of the combined hazard ratio were obtained. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was assessed using the between-subgroup I-square statistics and meta-regression.Twenty-four unique studies were eligible and large heterogeneity (I-square statistics > 50%) was observed in all comparisons. Type of data, location, and order of treatment (first or second line) modified the magnitude and direction of discontinuation comparing infliximab with either adalimumab or etanercept; however, some heterogeneity remained. No effect modifier was identified when adalimumab and etanercept were compared.Heterogeneity in studies comparing discontinuation of TNF antagonists in RA is partially explained by type of data, location, and order of treatment. Pooling hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists is inappropriate because largely unexplained heterogeneity was demonstrated when random effect estimates were calculated.

Recent evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) might be linked with adverse cardiac events, but a causal relationship is unproven.We applied the self-matched case series method to two studies using population-based health care data from Ontario, Canada between 1996 and 2008. The first included subjects aged 66 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction within 12 weeks following initiation of PPI, while the second included subjects hospitalized for heart failure. In both studies we designated the primary risk interval as the initial 4 weeks of therapy and the control interval as the final 4 weeks. To test the specificity of our findings we examined use of histamine H2 receptor antagonists and benzodiazepines, drugs with no plausible causal link to adverse cardiac events.During the 13-year study period, we identified 5550 hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction and 6003 admissions for heart failure within 12 weeks of commencing PPI therapy. In the main analyses, we found that initiation of a PPI was associated with a higher risk of acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 1.9) and heart failure (odds ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 1.9). However, secondary analyses revealed similar risk estimates histamine H2 receptor antagonists and benzodiazepines, drugs with no known or suspected association with adverse cardiac events.PPIs are associated with a short-term risk of adverse cardiac events, but similar associations are seen with other drugs exhibiting no known cardiac toxicity. Collectively these observations suggest that the association between PPIs and adverse cardiac events does not represent reflect cause-and-effect.

OBJECTIVE:Rosiglitazone was found associated with approximately a 43% increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a two meta-analyses of clinical trials. Our objective is to estimate the magnitude of the association in real-world patients previously treated with metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:We conducted a nested case control study in British Columbia using health care databases on 4.3 million people. Our cohort consisted of 158,578 patients with Type 2 diabetes who used metformin as first-line drug treatment. We matched 2,244 cases of myocardial infarction (AMI) with up to 4 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate matched odds ratios for AMI associated with treatment with rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas. RESULTS:In our cohort of prior metformin users, adding rosiglitazone for up to 6 months was not associated with an increased risk of AMI compared to adding a sulfonylurea (odds ratio [OR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.10), or compared to adding pioglitazone (OR for rosi versus pio 1.41; 95% CI, 0.74-2.66). There were also no significant differences between rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas for longer durations of treatment. Though not significantly different from sulfonylureas, there was a transient increase in AMI risk associated with the first 6 months of treatment with a glitazone compared to not using the treatment (OR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.07) CONCLUSIONS:In our British Columbia cohort of patients who received metformin as first-line pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, further treatment with rosiglitazone did not increase the risk of AMI compared to patients who were treated with pioglitazone or a sulfonylurea. Though not statistically significantly different compared from each other, an increased risk of AMI observed after starting rosiglitazone or sulfonylureas is a matter of concern that requires more research.