Search

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with systemic inflammation and systemic corticosteroid use which can lead to poor bone health. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the relationship between AD and bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis and fractures. We searched Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and Embase. Title, abstract and full‐text screening, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Quality appraisal was performed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methodology Checklist (cross‐sectional studies) and Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (cohort studies). We screened 3800 abstracts and included fifteen studies (twelve cross‐sectional, three cohort). In cross‐sectional studies, AD was associated with decreased BMD and increased fractures. In cross‐sectional studies and a cohort study, AD was associated with a higher prevalence of osteoporosis compared to controls. There was inconsistency across studies, with some finding no association. In a large cohort study, AD was associated with increased risk of fractures of the hip (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.11), spine (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.23) and wrist (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10), with further increased risk with more severe AD. Differences between studies precluded quantitative synthesis. There is some evidence supporting an association between AD and poor bone health. Research is needed to clarify this association, underlying mechanisms and develop strategies to improve bone health of individuals with AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors., Methods and Results: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall., Conclusions: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.

Aims: To characterize comparative risks and benefits of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone in a contemporary cohort where the unregulated drug supply is dominated by fentanyl., Design, Setting and Participants: Population-based propensity-score matched cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada among people aged 18+ initiating opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for an opioid use disorder between October 2016 and December 2018 (n = 18 880)., Intervention: Initiation of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone., Measurements: The primary outcome was opioid overdose (fatal and non-fatal) while on treatment, with secondary outcomes including opioid overdose (first 30 days of treatment), treatment discontinuation, health-care interactions related to treatment of opioid use disorder, receiving a weekly supply of take-home doses and opioid overdose within 30 days of treatment discontinuation. Outcomes were assessed over 1 year., Findings: Overall, 7517 people initiating buprenorphine were matched to an equal number of methadone-treated individuals. Risk of opioid overdose while on treatment [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.37-0.68] or within the first 30 days of treatment (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.31-0.85) was lower among buprenorphine recipients compared to methadone recipients. In secondary analyses, people initiating buprenorphine had a higher risk of treatment discontinuation within the first year (median time to discontinuation 104 versus 265 days, HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.37-1.49), had lower rates of health-care interactions for OUD (186.4 versus 254.3 per person-year; rate ratio = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.72-0.75), and a higher rate of receiving weekly take-home doses (HR = 2.33; 95% CI = 2.20-2.46). Overdose rates in the period following OAT discontinuation were higher than those observed while on treatment, but did not differ significantly by OAT type., Conclusions: Although treatment retention is higher among methadone recipients, overdose risk is also elevated compared to buprenorphine recipients. These findings demonstrate the benefits of any OAT on avoidance of overdose, particularly following treatment discontinuation and with the increasingly unpredictable drug supply in North America., (© 2022 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background Adherence to oral anticoagulation (OAC) is critical for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. However, the COVID-19 pandemic may have disrupted access to such therapy. We hypothesized that our analysis of a US nationally representative pharmacy claims database would identify increased incidence of lapses in OAC refills during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and Results We identified individuals with atrial fibrillation prescribed OAC in 2018. We used pharmacy dispensing records to determine the incidence of 7-day OAC gaps and 15-day excess supply for each 30-day interval from January 1, 2019 to July 8, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series analyses to test changes in gaps and supply around the pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization (March 11, 2020), and whether such changes differed by medication (warfarin or direct OAC), prescription payment type, or prescriber specialty. We identified 1 301 074 individuals (47.5% women; 54% age ≥75 years). Immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic declaration, we observed a 14% decrease in 7-day OAC gaps and 56% increase in 15-day excess supply (both P <0.001). The increase in 15-day excess supply was more marked for direct OAC (69% increase) than warfarin users (35%; P <0.001); Medicare beneficiaries (62%) than those with commercial insurance (43%; P <0.001); and those prescribed OAC by a cardiologist (64%) rather than a primary care provider (48%; P <0.001). Conclusions Our analysis of nationwide claims data demonstrated increased OAC possession after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings may have been driven by waivers of early refill limits and patients' tendency to stockpile medications in the first weeks of the pandemic.

Background and Aims: In June 2016, the Ontario, Canada government implemented the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies (ONPP), authorizing pharmacists to provide injectable naloxone kits at no charge to all Ontario residents. In March 2018, the program was amended to include intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card to the dispensing pharmacist. We examined whether these changes increased naloxone dispensing through the ONPP., Design: Population-based time-series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models., Setting: Ontario, Canada., Participants: All Ontario residents between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2020., Measurements: Monthly rates of pharmacy naloxone dispensing., Findings: Overall, 199 484 individuals were dispensed a naloxone kit during the study period. In the main analysis, the rate of pharmacy naloxone dispensing increased by 65.1% following program changes (55.6-91.8 kits per 100 000 population between February 2018 and May 2018; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, naloxone dispensing increased among individuals receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) (3374.9-7264.2 kits per 100 000 OAT recipients; P = 0.04) among individuals receiving other prescription opioids (192.8-381.8 kits per 100 000 population prescribed opioids; P < 0.01), among individuals with past opioid exposure (134.7-205.6 kits per 100 000 population with past opioid exposure; P < 0.01) and in urban centers (56.2-91.4 kits per 100 000 population; P < 0.01). We did not observe a clear impact on pharmacy-dispensed naloxone to individuals with no or unknown opioid exposure (34.4-39.3 kits per 100 000 population with no/unknown opioid exposure; P = 0.42) and in rural regions (50.4-97.2 kits per 100 000 population; P = 0.09)., Conclusions: Changes to the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies to add intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card appeared to increase pharmacy-based naloxone dispensing uptake in Ontario, Canada, particularly among individuals at high risk of inadvertent opioid overdose., (© 2020 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the Society for the Study of Addiction.)