Search

ObjectiveIt is unclear if biosimilars of biologics for inflammatory arthritis are realizing their promise to increase competition and improve accessibility. This study evaluates biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) utilization across rheumatology practices in the United States and compares whether patients initiating biosimilars remain on these treatments at least as long as new initiators of bio-originators.MethodsWe identified a cohort of patients initiating a TNFi biosimilar between January 2017 and September 2018 from an electronic health record registry containing data from 218 rheumatology practices and over 1 million rheumatology patients in the United States. We also identified a cohort of patients who initiated the bio-originator TNFi during the same period. We calculated the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions compared with other TNFi's and compared persistence on these therapies, adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses codes, and insurance type.ResultsWe identified 909 patients prescribed the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb, the only biosimilar prescribed, and 4413 patients with a new prescription for the bio-originator infliximab. Biosimilar patients tended to be older, have a diagnosis code for rheumatoid arthritis, and covered by Medicare insurance. Over the study period, biosimilar prescriptions reached a maximum of 3.5% of all TNFi prescriptions. Patients persisted on the biosimilar at least as long as the bio-originator infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P = 0.07).ConclusionThe uptake of biosimilars in the United States remains low despite persistence on infliximab-dyyb being similar to the infliximab bio-originator. These results add to clinical studies that should provide greater confidence to patients and physicians regarding biosimilar use.

The increasing availability of electronic health record (EHR) systems has created enormous potential for translational research. However, it is difficult to know all the relevant codes related to a phenotype due to the large number of codes available. Traditional data mining approaches often require the use of patient-level data, which hinders the ability to share data across institutions. In this project, we demonstrate that multi-center large-scale code embeddings can be used to efficiently identify relevant features related to a disease of interest. We constructed large-scale code embeddings for a wide range of codified concepts from EHRs from two large medical centers. We developed knowledge extraction via sparse embedding regression (KESER) for feature selection and integrative network analysis. We evaluated the quality of the code embeddings and assessed the performance of KESER in feature selection for eight diseases. Besides, we developed an integrated clinical knowledge map combining embedding data from both institutions. The features selected by KESER were comprehensive compared to lists of codified data generated by domain experts. Features identified via KESER resulted in comparable performance to those built upon features selected manually or with patient-level data. The knowledge map created using an integrative analysis identified disease-disease and disease-drug pairs more accurately compared to those identified using single institution data. Analysis of code embeddings via KESER can effectively reveal clinical knowledge and infer relatedness among codified concepts. KESER bypasses the need for patient-level data in individual analyses providing a significant advance in enabling multi-center studies using EHR data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically assess the existing empiric evidence regarding a potential relationship between higher body weight and procedural abortion complications., Data Sources: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched., Methods of Study Selection: Our search identified 409 studies, which were uploaded to Covidence for review management; 133 duplicates were automatically removed. A team of two reviewers screened 276 studies, and a third reviewer resolved conflicts. Studies were included if they 1) consisted of peer-reviewed research published between 2010 and 2022, 2) were conducted in the United States, 3) included people with a higher body weight (body mass index [BMI] 30 or higher) in the study sample, and 4) assessed at least one outcome of procedural abortion safety stratified by a measure of body weight., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: We extracted study data using Covidence and calculated an odds ratio for each study to facilitate the synthesis of results. Six studies assessing a total of 38,960 participants were included. No studies found a significant relationship between procedural abortion complications and higher body weight overall. Subgroup analysis from one study identified a significant increase in complications specifically among participants with BMIs higher than 40 who had second-trimester abortions. All studies used a retrospective cohort design and fulfilled Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria to be considered good quality. Studies varied in terms of clinical settings, patient populations, gestations assessed, clinician training levels, and care protocols., Conclusion: Overall, higher body weight was not associated with an increased risk of procedural abortion complications in the included studies. The practice of referring patients undergoing procedural abortion with a higher body weight for hospital-based care is not based on recent safety evidence. On the contrary, this practice threatens the health of people with a higher body weight by potentially delaying their access to abortion care, extending their pregnancies into later gestations, and blocking their ability to access an abortion altogether., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Whitney S. Rice reports that her institution received funding from the Collaborative for Gender+Reproductive Equity, a project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2025 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)