Search

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the second most widely used class of analgesics in France, after paracetamol. Some NSAIDs are available over the counter (OTC), without a prescription, on the advice of a pharmacist. NSAIDs have recently been the subject of safety alerts from France's Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), highlighting a risk of worsening certain bacterial infections. This signal has not been confirmed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) although a "risk of complications due to masking of symptoms of infection" has not been ruled out. These divergent messages can be confusing for healthcare professionals. This literature review, based on an analysis of nearly 200 scientific publications, considers the place of NSAIDs in the OTC management of migraine, tension headaches, postoperative analgesia, acute musculoskeletal and joint pain, dysmenorrhea, viral respiratory infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and their toxicity. The role of the pharmacist in dispensing NSAIDs without a prescription is also addressed. NSAIDs offer rapid and effective pain management in a context of increasingly challenging access to care. Their safety profile is reassuring and generally well established but could be strengthened by conducting an ad hoc study to rule on the safety signal issued by the ANSM definitively. Pharmacists have the knowledge and tools to ensure the safe dispensing and rational use of NSAIDs, with or without a prescription. The introduction of risk minimization measures, such as decision-support tools, could enable further progress in ensuring the safe dispensing of OTC NSAIDs., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated., Aim: To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored., Methods: A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots., Results: A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Conventional vaccines rarely cause severe allergic reactions. However, the rapid development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines left limited initial data on their adverse reactions, particularly in individuals with a history of allergy. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety profile of different doses and brands of COVID-19 vaccines in subjects with a history of allergy vs. those without a history of allergy. Methods: From February 2021 to February 2023, a web-based prospective study gathered vaccinee-reported outcomes using electronic questionnaires across eleven European countries. Baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires captured data on vaccinee demographics, as well as both solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Results: Overall, 3476 vaccinees with a history of allergy were matched with 13,872 vaccinees from the general population at the first vaccination cycle and were included in the analysis. A total of 825 vaccinees with a history of allergy who had received a booster dose, matched to 3297 vaccinees from the general population, were included in the analysis. Higher rates of ADRs occurred after the first vaccination cycle compared to after the booster dose (64-91% vs. 56-79%). However, most reported ADRs were solicited and not serious, and no case of anaphylaxis was reported. Women and vaccinees with a history of allergy reported ADRs more frequently than men and the matched controls, respectively. Compared to other COVID-19 vaccines, a higher proportion of vaccinees experiencing at least one ADR following their first vaccination cycle was observed with Comirnaty and Vaxzevria. Statistically significant differences were observed among the study cohorts for median TTO after the second dose, and for median TTR following the first vaccination cycle and booster dose ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Typically, any drug or vaccine use carries a risk of severe allergic reactions, yet the benefits of vaccination generally outweigh these potential risks, as shown with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Purpose: Metadata for data dIscoverability aNd study rEplicability in obseRVAtional studies (MINERVA), a European Medicines Agency-funded project (EUPAS39322), defined a set of metadata to describe real-world data sources (RWDSs) and piloted metadata collection in a prototype catalogue to assist investigators from data source discoverability through study conduct., Methods: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe., Results: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype., Conclusions: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics., Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data., Design, Setting, and Participants: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data., Results and Limitations: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent., Conclusions: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data., Patient Summary: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs., Methods: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU)., Results: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited., Conclusion: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: This paper aims to introduce an algorithm designed to identify Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in the French National Healthcare Database (SNDS) and to estimate its positive predictive value., Methods: A case-identifying algorithm was designed using SNDS inpatient and outpatient encounters, including hospital stays with discharge diagnoses, imaging procedures and drugs dispensed, of French patients aged at least 18 years old to whom baricitinib or Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors (TNFi) were dispensed between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. An intra-database validation study was then conducted, drawing 150 cases identified as VTE by the algorithm and requesting four vascular specialists to assess them. Patient profiles used to conduct the case adjudication were reconstituted from de-identified pooled and formatted SNDS data (i.e., reconstituted electronic health records-rEHR) with a 6-month look-back period prior to the supposed VTE onset and a 12-month follow-up period after. The positive predictive value (PPV) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated as the number of expert-confirmed VTE divided by the number of algorithm-identified VTE. The PPV and its 95% CI were then recomputed among the same patient set initially drawn, once the VTE-identifying algorithm was updated based on expert recommendation., Results: For the 150 patients identified with the first VTE-identifying algorithm, the adjudication committee confirmed 92 cases, resulting in a PPV of 61% (95% CI = [54-69]). The final VTE-identifying algorithm including expert suggestions showed a PPV of 92% (95% CI = [86-98]) with a total of 87 algorithm-identified cases, including 80 retrieved from the 92 confirmed by experts., Conclusion: The identification of VTE in the SNDS is possible with a good PPV., (© 2024 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background and Objectives: The European Medicine Agency extended the use of Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Nuvaxovid in paediatrics; thus, these vaccines require additional real-world safety evidence. Herein, we aimed to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through Covid-19 Vaccine Monitor (CVM) and EudraVigilance surveillance systems and the published pivotal clinical trials., Methods: In a prospective cohort of vaccinees aged between 5 and 17 years, we measured the frequency of commonly reported (local/systemic solicited) and serious adverse drug events (ADRs) following the first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe using data from the CVM cohort until April 2022. The results of previous pivotal clinical trials and data in the EudraVigilance were also analysed., Results: The CVM study enrolled 658 first-dose vaccinees (children aged 5-11 years; n = 250 and adolescents aged 12-17 years; n = 408). Local/systemic solicited ADRs were common, whereas serious ADRs were uncommon. Among Comirnaty first and second dose recipients, 28.8% and 17.1% of children and 54.2% and 52.2% of adolescents experienced at least one ADR, respectively; injection-site pain (29.2% and 20.7%), fatigue (16.1% and 12.8%), and headache (22.1% and 19.3%) were the most frequent local and systemic ADRs. Results were consistent but slightly lower than in pivotal clinical trials. Reporting rates in Eudravigilance were lower by a factor of 1000., Conclusions: The CVM study showed high frequencies of local solicited reactions after vaccination but lower rates than in pivotal clinical trials. Injection-site pain, fatigue, and headache were the most commonly reported ADRs for clinical trials, but higher than spontaneously reported data., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees., Methods: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire., Results: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands., Conclusion: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background and Objectives: Some medications require specific medical procedures in the weeks before their start. Such procedures may meet the definition of instrumental variables (IVs). We examined how they may influence treatment effect estimation in propensity score (PS)-adjusted comparative studies, and how to remedy., Study Design and Setting: Different covariate assessment periods (CAPs) did and did not include the month preceding treatment start were used to compute PS in the French claims database (Sytème National des Données de Santé-SNDS), and 1:1 match patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer initiating abiraterone acetate or docetaxel. The 36-month survival was assessed., Results: Among 1, 213 docetaxel and 2, 442 abiraterone initiators, the PS distribution resulting from the CAP [-12; 0 months] distinctly separated populations (c = 0.93; 273 matched pairs). The CAPs [-12;-1 months] identified 765 pairs (c = 0.81). Strong docetaxel treatment predictors during the month before treatment start were implantable delivery systems (1% vs. 59%), which fulfilled IV conditions. The 36-month survival was not meaningfully different under the [-12; 0 months] CAP but differed by 10% points (38% vs. 28%) after excluding month -1., Conclusion: In the setting of highly predictive pretreatment procedures, excluding the immediate pre-exposure time from the CAP will reduce the risk of including potential IVs in PS models and may reduce bias., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this work is to evaluate baricitinib safety with respect to venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and serious infection relative to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Patients with RA from 14 real-world data sources (three disease registries, eight commercial and three government health insurance claims databases) in the United States (n = 9), Europe (n = 3), and Japan (n = 2) were analyzed using a new user active comparator design. Propensity score matching (1:1) controlled for potential confounding. Meta-analysis of incidence rate ratios (IRR) and incidence rate differences (IRD) for each outcome, from each data source was executed using modified Poisson regression and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis., Results: Of 9013 eligible baricitinib-treated patients, 7606 were propensity score-matched with TNFi-treated patients, contributing 5879 and 6512 person-years of baricitinib and TNFi exposure, respectively. Across data sources, 97 patients (56 baricitinib) experienced VTE during follow-up, 93 experienced MACE (54 baricitinib), and 321 experienced serious infection (176 baricitinib). Overall IRRs comparing baricitinib with TNFi treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.10, 2.08) for VTE, 1.54 (95% CI 0.93, 2.54) for MACE, and 1.36 (95% CI 0.86, 2.13) for serious infection. IRDs for VTE, MACE, and serious infection, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI -0.04, 0.57), 0.22 (95% CI -0.07, 0.52), and 0.57 (95% CI -0.07, 1.21) per 100 person-years greater for baricitinib than TNFi., Conclusions: Overall results suggest increased risk of VTE with baricitinib versus TNFi, with consistent point estimates from the two largest data sources. A numerically greater risk was observed for MACE and serious infection when comparing baricitinib versus TNFi, with different point estimates from the two largest data sources. Findings from this study and their impact on clinical practice should be considered in context of limitations and other evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of baricitinib and other Janus kinase inhibitors., Trial Registration: EU PAS Register ( http://encepp.eu ), identifier #32271., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Healthcare pathways of patients with prostate cancer are heterogeneous and complex to apprehend using traditional descriptive statistics. Clustering and visualization methods can enhance their characterization., Methods: Patients with prostate cancer in 2014 were identified in the French National Healthcare database ( Système National des Données de Santé -SNDS) and their data were extracted with up to 5 years of history and 4 years of follow-up. Fifty-one-specific encounters constitutive of prostate cancer management were synthesized into four macro-variables using a clustering approach. Their values over patient follow-ups constituted healthcare pathways. Optimal matching was applied to calculate distances between pathways. Partitioning around medoids was then used to define consistent groups across four exclusive cohorts of incident prostate cancer patients: Hormone-sensitive (HSPC), metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC), castration-resistant (CRPC), and metastatic castration-resistant (mCRPC). Index plots were used to represent pathways clusters., Results: The repartition of macro-variables values-surveillance, local treatment, androgenic deprivation, and advanced treatment-appeared to be consistent with prostate cancer status. Two to five clusters of healthcare pathways were observed in each of the different cohorts, corresponding for most of them to relevant clinical patterns, although some heterogeneity remained. For instance, clustering allowed to distinguish patients undergoing active surveillance, or treated according to cancer progression risk in HSPC, and patients receiving treatment for potentially curative or palliative purposes in mHSPC and mCRPC., Conclusion: Visualization methods combined with a clustering approach enabled the identification of clinically relevant patterns of prostate cancer management. Characterization of these care pathways is an essential element for the comprehension and the robust assessment of healthcare technology effectiveness., Competing Interests: 1Jérémy Jové, Régis Lassalle, Dunia Sakr, Magali Rouyer, Patrick Blin, Cécile Droz‐Perroteau, and Nicolas H. Thurin are researchers at Bordeaux PharmacoEpi, a research platform of Bordeaux University and its subsidiary the ADERA, which performs financially supported studies for public and private partners in compliance with the ENCePP Code of Conduct. Marine Gross‐Goupil declares personal fees and nonfinancial support from Janssen, Sanofi, Astellas, Ipsen, Amgen, and Pfizer. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Innovation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of Tsinghua University Press.)

Objectives: To conduct the direct comparison of abiraterone acetate and docetaxel for first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in real-life settings., Methods: Data were extracted from the French nationwide claims database (SNDS) on all men aged ≥40 years starting first-line treatment with abiraterone acetate or docetaxel for mCRPC in 2014. A high-dimensional propensity score including 100 baseline characteristics was used to match patients of both groups and form two comparative cohorts. Three-year overall survival and treatment discontinuation-free survival were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis., Results: In 2014, 2,444 patients started abiraterone for treatment of mCRPC and 1,214 started docetaxel. After trimming and matching, 716 patients were available in each group. Median overall survival tended to be longer in the abiraterone acetate cohort (23.8 months, 95% confidence interval = [21.5; 26.0]) than in the docetaxel cohort (20.3 [18.4; 21.6] months). Survival at 36 months was 34.6% for abiraterone acetate and 27.9% for docetaxel ( p = 0.0027). Treatment discontinuation-free median was longer in the abiraterone acetate cohort compared to the docetaxel cohort (10.8 [10.1; 11.7] versus 7.4 [7.0; 8.0] months)., Conclusion: The findings underline the interest of oral abiraterone acetate over intravenous docetaxel as the first-line treatment option in mCRPC.

Objectives: Existing individual-level human data cover large populations on many dimensions such as lifestyle, demography, laboratory measures, clinical parameters, etc. Recent years have seen large investments in data catalogues to FAIRify data descriptions to capitalise on this great promise, i.e. make catalogue contents more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. However, their valuable diversity also created heterogeneity, which poses challenges to optimally exploit their richness., Methods: In this opinion review, we analyse catalogues for human subject research ranging from cohort studies to surveillance, administrative and healthcare records., Results: We observe that while these catalogues are heterogeneous, have various scopes, and use different terminologies, still the underlying concepts seem potentially harmonizable. We propose a unified framework to enable catalogue data sharing, with catalogues of multi-center cohorts nested as a special case in catalogues of real-world data sources. Moreover, we list recommendations to create an integrated community of metadata catalogues and an open catalogue ecosystem to sustain these efforts and maximise impact., Conclusions: We propose to embrace the autonomy of motivated catalogue teams and invest in their collaboration via minimal standardisation efforts such as clear data licensing, persistent identifiers for linking same records between catalogues, minimal metadata 'common data elements' using shared ontologies, symmetric architectures for data sharing (push/pull) with clear provenance tracks to process updates and acknowledge original contributors. And most importantly, we encourage the creation of environments for collaboration and resource sharing between catalogue developers, building on international networks such as OpenAIRE and research data alliance, as well as domain specific ESFRIs such as BBMRI and ELIXIR., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (IMIA and Thieme. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

In 2019, the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) funded the ConcePTION project-Building an ecosystem for better monitoring and communicating safety of medicines use in pregnancy and breastfeeding: validated and regulatory endorsed workflows for fast, optimised evidence generation-with the vision that there is a societal obligation to rapidly reduce uncertainty about the safety of medication use in pregnancy and breastfeeding. The present paper introduces the set of concepts used to describe the European data sources involved in the ConcePTION project and illustrates the ConcePTION Common Data Model (CDM), which serves as the keystone of the federated ConcePTION network. Based on data availability and content analysis of 21 European data sources, the ConcePTION CDM has been structured with six tables designed to capture data from routine healthcare, three tables for data from public health surveillance activities, three curated tables for derived data on population (e.g., observation time and mother-child linkage), plus four metadata tables. By its first anniversary, the ConcePTION CDM has enabled 13 data sources to run common scripts to contribute to major European projects, demonstrating its capacity to facilitate effective and transparent deployment of distributed analytics, and its potential to address questions about utilization, effectiveness, and safety of medicines in special populations, including during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and, more broadly, in the general population., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Diagnosis performances of case-identifying algorithms developed in healthcare database are usually assessed by comparing identified cases with an external data source. When this is not feasible, intra-database validation can present an appropriate alternative., Objectives: To illustrate through two practical examples how to perform intra-database validations of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted Electronic Health Records (rEHRs)., Methods: Patients with 1) multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses and 2) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were identified in the French nationwide healthcare database (SNDS) using two case-identifying algorithms. A validation study was then conducted to estimate diagnostic performances of these algorithms through the calculation of their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). To that end, anonymized rEHRs were generated based on the overall information captured in the SNDS over time (e.g. procedure, hospital stays, drug dispensing, medical visits) for a random selection of patients identified as cases or non-cases according to the predefined algorithms. For each disease, an independent validation committee reviewed the rEHRs of 100 cases and 100 non-cases in order to adjudicate on the status of the selected patients (true case/ true non-case), blinded with respect to the result of the corresponding algorithm., Results: Algorithm for relapses identification in MS showed a 95% PPV and 100% NPV. Algorithm for mCRPC identification showed a 97% PPV and 99% NPV., Conclusion: The use of rEHRs to conduct an intra-database validation appears to be a valuable tool to estimate the performances of a case-identifying algorithm and assess its validity, in the absence of alternative.

Purposes: Drug induced acute liver injury (ALI) is a frequent cause of liver failure. Case-based designs were empirically assessed and calibrated in the French National claims database (SNDS), aiming to identify the optimum design for drug safety alert generation associated with ALI., Methods: All cases of ALI were extracted from SNDS (2009-2014) using specific and sensitive definitions. Positive and negative drug controls were used to compare 196 self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-control (CC), and case-population (CP) design variants, using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), mean square error (MSE) and coverage probability. Parameters that had major impacts on results were identified through logistic regression., Results: Using a specific ALI definition, AUCs ranged from 0.78 to 0.94, 0.64 to 0.92 and 0.48 to 0.85, for SCCS, CC and CP, respectively. MSE ranged from 0.12 to 0.40, 0.22 to 0.39 and 1.03 to 5.29, respectively. Variants adjusting for multiple drug use had higher coverage probabilities. Univariate regressions showed that high AUCs were achieved with SCCS using exposed time as the risk window. The top SCCS variant yielded an AUC = 0.93 and MSE = 0.22 and coverage = 86%, with 1/7 negative and 13/18 positive controls presenting significant estimates., Conclusions: SCCS adjusting for multiple drugs and using exposed time as the risk window performed best in generating ALI-related drug safety alert and providing estimates of the magnitude of the risk. This approach may be useful for ad-hoc pharmacoepidemiology studies to support regulatory actions., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is a lack of information about the burden of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The present work aims to estimate the incidence and prevalence of mCRPC in 2014 using the French nationwide healthcare database (SNDS)., Methods: Prevalence and incidence were estimated based on an SNDS extraction of men covered by the general healthcare insurance (86 % of the French population), and aged ≥40. Patients with mCRPC were identified amongst prostate cancer cases using an algorithm estimating a date of first metastasis management and a date of castration resistance. This algorithm was validated by clinical experts through a blind review of 200 anonymized medical charts from SNDS data. Prevalence and incidence were standardized on the European Standard Population (2013 edition)., Results: Prevalence and incidence of mCRPC were estimated as, respectively, 62 and 21 cases per 100 000 men in 2014. Less than one mCRPC case per 100 000 was observed in men aged 40-49. Maximum mCRPC incidence was in men aged 80-89 (175 per 100 000). The algorithm used for mCRPC identification had 97 % positive and 99 % negative predictive values., Conclusion: The good performances of the algorithm for mCRPC identification and the consistency of the generated results with the existing data highlight the robustness of these first estimates of mCRPC prevalence and incidence. Future updates will call for algorithm adjustment as practices evolve over time. These first real-life data will serve for future follow-up of the impact of changes in the management of prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To introduce the methodology of the ALCAPONE project., Background: The French National Healthcare System Database (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, provides a potentially valuable opportunity for drug safety alert generation. ALCAPONE aimed to assess empirically in the SNDS case-based designs for alert generation related to four health outcomes of interest., Methods: ALCAPONE used a reference set adapted from observational medical outcomes partnership (OMOP) and Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions (EU-ADR) project, with four outcomes-acute liver injury (ALI), myocardial infarction (MI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB)-and positive and negative drug controls. ALCAPONE consisted of four main phases: (1) data preparation to fit the OMOP Common Data Model and select the drug controls; (2) detection of the selected controls via three case-based designs: case-population, case-control, and self-controlled case series, including design variants (varying risk window, adjustment strategy, etc.); (3) comparison of design variant performance (area under the ROC curve, mean square error, etc.); and (4) selection of the optimal design variants and their calibration for each outcome., Results: Over 2009-2014, 5225 cases of ALI, 354 109 MI, 12 633 AKI, and 156 057 UGIB were identified using specific definitions. The number of detectable drugs ranged from 61 for MI to 25 for ALI. Design variants generated more than 50 000 points estimates. Results by outcome will be published in forthcoming papers., Conclusions: ALCAPONE has shown the interest of the empirical assessment of pharmacoepidemiological approaches for drug safety alert generation and may encourage other researchers to do the same in other databases., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a severe and frequent drug-related event. In order to enable efficient drug safety alert generation in the French National Healthcare System database (SNDS), we assessed and calibrated empirically case-based designs to identify drug associated with UGIB risk., Methods: All cases of UGIB were extracted from SNDS (2009-2014) using two definitions. Positive and negative drug controls were used to compare 196 self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-control (CC) and case-population (CP) design variants. Each variant was evaluated in a 1/10 th population sample using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and mean square error (MSE). Parameters that had major impacts on results were identified through logistic regression. Optimal designs were replicated in the unsampled population., Results: Using a specific UGIB definition, AUCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.80, 0.44 to 0.61 and 0.50 to 0.67, for SCCS, CC and CP, respectively. MSE ranged from 0.07 to 0.39, 0.83 to 1.33 and 1.96 to 4.6, respectively. Univariate regressions showed that high AUCs were achieved with SCCS with multiple drug adjustment and a 30-day risk window starting at exposure. The top-performing SCCS variant in the unsampled population yielded an AUC = 0.84 and MSE = 0.14, with 10/36 negative controls presenting significant estimates., Conclusions: SCCS adjusting for multiple drugs and using a 30-day risk window has the potential to generate UGIB-related alerts in the SNDS and hypotheses on its potential population impact. Negative control implementation highlighted that low systematic error was generated but that protopathic bias and confounding by indication remained unaddressed issues., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)