Comparative Stroke, Bleeding, and Mortality Risks in Older Medicare Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are alternatives to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Randomized trials compared NOACs with warfarin, but none have compared individual NOACs against each other for safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective new-user cohort study of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation enrolled in US Medicare who initiated warfarin (n = 183,318), or a standard dose of dabigatran (150 mg twice daily; n = 86,198), rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily; n = 106,389), or apixaban (5 mg twice daily; n = 73,039) between October 2010 and September 2015. Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, major extracranial bleeding, and all-cause mortality, comparing each NOAC with warfarin, and with each other NOAC.

RESULTS

Compared with warfarin, each NOAC was associated with reduced risks of thromboembolic stroke (20%-29% reduction; P = .002 [dabigatran], P < 0.001 [rivaroxaban, apixaban]), intracranial hemorrhage (35%-62% reduction; P < 0.001 [each NOAC]), and mortality (19%-34% reduction; P < .001 [each NOAC]). The NOACs were similar for thromboembolic stroke but rivaroxaban was associated with increased risks of intracranial hemorrhage (vs dabigatran: HR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.17), major extracranial bleeding (vs dabigatran: HR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45; vs apixaban: HR = 2.70; 95% CI, 2.38-3.05), and death (vs dabigatran: HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; vs apixaban: HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.38). Dabigatran was associated with reduced risk of intracranial hemorrhage (HR = 0.70; 95% CI ,0.53-0.94) and increased risk of major extracranial bleeding (HR = 2.04; 95% CI, 1.78-2.32) compared with apixaban.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients treated with standard-dose NOAC for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and warfarin users with similar baseline characteristics, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban were associated with a more favorable benefit-harm profile than warfarin. Among NOAC users, dabigatran and apixaban were associated with a more favorable benefit-harm profile than rivaroxaban.

Provider Experience and the Comparative Safety of Laparoscopic and Open Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy across surgeons varying in experience with laparoscopy.

DATA SOURCES

National Medicare data (2008-2010) for beneficiaries undergoing laparoscopic or open colectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Using instrumental variable methods to address selection bias, we evaluated outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy. Our instrument was the regional use of laparoscopy in the year prior to a patient's operation. We then evaluated outcomes stratified by surgeons' annual volume of laparoscopic colectomy.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.75, 95 percent CI: 0.70-0.78) and fewer complications than open surgery (OR: 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.79-0.85). Increasing surgeon volume was associated with better outcomes for both procedures, but the relationship was stronger for laparoscopy. The comparative safety depended on surgeon volume. High-volume surgeons had 40 percent lower mortality (OR: 0.60, 95 percent CI: 0.55-0.65) and 30 percent fewer complications (OR: 0.70, 95 percent CI: 0.67-0.74) with laparoscopy. Conversely, low-volume surgeons had 7 percent higher mortality (OR: 1.07, 95 percent CI: 1.02-1.13) and 18 percent more complications (OR: 1.18, 95 percent CI: 1.12-1.24) with laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study demonstrates that the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy is influenced by surgeon volume. Laparoscopic colectomy is only safer for patients whose surgeons have sufficient experience.

Comparative Risk of Thrombotic and Cardiovascular Events with Tofacitinib and Anti-TNF Agents in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been associated with increased risks for thromboembolic and cardiovascular events, but drug attributable risk is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a US claims database. We identified patients with IBD by International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes, stipulated 180 days of continuous enrollment prior to tofacitinib or anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) initiation to determine new users. Primary outcomes were ICD codes for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cardiovascular (CV) events. We constructed propensity score (PS)-weighted Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and time-to-event outcomes comparing tofacitinib and anti-TNF. We conducted a subgroup analysis of patients ≥ 50 years.

RESULTS

We identified 305 patients with IBD initiating tofacitinib and compared them with 19,096 initiating anti-TNFs. After weighting, balance was achieved across all demographic covariates. VTE occurred in 5% of patients treated with tofacitinib and 4% of anti-TNF users; in a PS-weighted cohort, tofacitinib did not confer a significantly elevated VTE risk compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.74-3.01). A major CV event (MACE) occurred in 2% of tofacitinib users and 1% of anti-TNF users; tofacitinib also did not confer a significantly elevated risk for MACE (HR: 2.50, 95% CI: 0.37-6.18). Those with a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 2 had greater risks for thromboembolic and cardiovascular events. Similar findings were noted in patients ≥ 50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, active comparator, study, we demonstrate that tofacitinib was not associated with a higher risk of adverse thrombotic events compared with anti-TNFs in patients with IBD.

Atypical antipsychotic use and mortality risk in Parkinson disease

INTRODUCTION

Dopamine receptor blocking atypical antipsychotic (DRB-AAP) use has previously been associated with increased adverse effects and mortality risk among persons with Parkinson disease (PD). Pimavanserin, the only AAP indicated for PD psychosis in the U.S., is a serotonin receptor inverse agonist/antagonist with no known DRB activity. Early observational data have reported inconsistent findings regarding mortality risk associated with pimavanserin. The objective of this study was to estimate all-cause mortality risks of pimavanserin as compared to DRB-AAPs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a large U.S. commercial insurance database. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare all-cause mortality risks between propensity score-matched groups of PD patients who were new users of pimavanserin or a DRB-AAP, further dividing DRB-AAPs into preferred (quetiapine, clozapine) and non-preferred (other remaining AAPs).

RESULTS

We identified 775, 4,563, and 1,297 individuals on pimavanserin, preferred, and non-preferred DRB-AAPs, respectively. There was no difference in mortality risk for pimavanserin vs. preferred DRB-AAPs [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.99, 95% CI: 0.81-1.20], or pimavanserin vs. non-preferred DRB-AAPs (aHR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.79-1.22) in intention-to-treat analyses.

CONCLUSION

Mortality risk among PD patients using AAPs did not differ by antipsychotic drug categorization based on mechanism of action. Research on the comparative efficacy and morbidity of AAPs, and the mortality associated with psychosis itself is needed to guide clinical decision-making in the PD population.

Comparative rates of harms in randomized trials from more developed versus less developed countries may be different

OBJECTIVES

We set up to evaluate the relative risk of harms in trials performed in less developed vs. more developed countries.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Meta-epidemiologic evaluation using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We considered meta-analyses with at least one randomized clinical trial (RCT) in a less developed country and one RCT in a more developed country. We targeted severe adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, any AE, organ system-specific AEs, individual AEs, and all discontinuations due to any reason. We estimated the relative odds ratio (ROR) of harms between more and less developed countries for each topic and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics under each category of harms.

RESULTS

We identified 42 systematic reviews (128 meta-analyses, 521 independent RCTs). Summary sRORs did not differ significantly from 1.00 for any harm category. Nominally significant RORs were found in only 6/128 meta-analyses. However, in 27% (35/128) of meta-analyses the ROR point estimates indicated relative differences between country settings >2-fold. Considering also ROR 95% confidence intervals, in 92% (118/128) of meta-analyses one could not exclude a 2-fold difference in both directions.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified limited comparative evidence on harms in trials from these two country settings. Substantial differences in the risk point estimates were common; the potential for modest differences could rarely be excluded with confidence.

The risk of serious infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving tocilizumab compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in Korea

OBJECTIVES

To examine the risk of serious infections (SIs) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tocilizumab compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in Korea.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Korean National Health Insurance data. The study cohort included patients ≥18 years with RA who were initiated with tocilizumab or TNFi between January 2013 and June 2018. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of SIs, defined as an infection resulting in intravenous antimicrobial therapy or hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were organ-specific SIs. To control for confounders, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity score. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a multivariable Cox regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 8794 patients were identified: 1395 and 7399 patients initiated with tocilizumab and TNFi, respectively. The mean follow-up durations were 1.2 years for tocilizumab initiators and 1.0 year for TNFi initiators. After IPTW and adjustment, no increased risk of SIs was observed in tocilizumab versus TNFi (HR, 1.00; 95%CI, 0.90-1.11). In the secondary analysis, tocilizumab was associated with a higher risk of skin and subcutaneous tissue infections (HR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.02-1.54) and a lower risk of urological and gynecological infections (HR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.49-0.87) compared to TNFi.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based cohort of RA patients in Korea, tocilizumab was not associated with a higher risk of SI compared to TNFi. However, tocilizumab should be carefully used for patients at high risk for skin-related infections.

Comparative safety of JAK inhibitors versus TNF or IL-17 inhibitors for cardiovascular disease and cancer in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and common solid cancers between JAK inhibitors (JAKi) versus TNF or IL-17 inhibitors, among people with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

METHODS

We used real-world electronic health records data from a predominantly North American population of PsA or axSpA. Initiators of JAKi (tofacitinib or upadacitinib) and TNFi were 1:1 propensity score matched. Cox models were used to compare time to CVD (acute myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularization) or common solid cancers (breast, colorectal, lung or prostate) over 3 years. Analyses were repeated for JAKi versus IL-17i. We performed sensitivity analyses with follow-up over 1 or 5 years, in those aged ≥65 years, or those initiating treatment before 2021.

RESULTS

The JAKi vs TNFi comparison included 2,200 matched individuals in each group over 3,092 and 4,618 person-years, respectively. Compared to TNFi, JAKi was not associated with higher risk of CVD (HR 0.977; 95% 0.632, 1.510) or cancer (HR 0.710; 0.462, 1.091) over 3 years' follow-up. JAKi vs IL-17i comparison included 2,287 individuals over 3,190 and 4,312 person-years, respectively. Compared to IL-17i, JAKi was not associated with risk of CVD (HR 1.114; 0.720,1.722) or cancer (HR 0.737; 0.484,1.122). Results across stratified analyses were directionally concordant.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are reassuring that among a large population of people with PsA or axSpA, JAKi was not associated with increased risk of CVD or common solid cancers, compared to TNFi or IL-17i initiators. Ongoing monitoring of cardiovascular and cancer risks is needed.

Comparative safety of tenecteplase vs alteplase for acute ischemic stroke

INTRODUCTION

Tenecteplase has been compared to alteplase in acute stroke randomized trials, with similar outcomes and safety measures, but higher doses of tenecteplase have been associated with higher hemorrhage rates in some studies. Limited data are available on the safety of tenecteplase outside of clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined the safety measures of intracranial hemorrhage, angioedema, and serious extracranial adverse events in a 21-hospital integrated healthcare system that switched from alteplase (0.9 mg/kg, maximum dose 90 mg) to tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg, maximum dose 25 mg) for acute ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

Among 3,689 subjects, no significant differences were seen between tenecteplase and alteplase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), parenchymal hemorrhage, or volume of parenchymal hemorrhage. Symptomatic hemorrhage (sICH) was not different between the two agents: sICH by NINDS criteria was 2.0 % for alteplase vs 2.3 % for tenecteplase (P = 0.57), and sICH by SITS criteria was 0.8 % vs 1.1 % (P = 0.39). Adjusted logistic regression models also showed no differences between tenecteplase and alteplase: the odds ratio for tenecteplase (vs alteplase) modeling sICH by NINDS criteria was 0.9 (95 % CI 0.33 - 2.46, P = 0.83) and the odds ratio for tenecteplase modeling sICH by SITS criteria was 1.12 (95 % CI 0.25 - 5.07, P = 0.89). Rates of angioedema and serious extracranial adverse events were low and did not differ between tenecteplase and alteplase. Elapsed door-to-needle times showed a small improvement after the switch to tenecteplase (51.8 % treated in under 30 min with tenecteplase vs 43.5 % with alteplase, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In use outside of clinical trials, complication rates are similar between tenecteplase and alteplase. In the context of a stroke telemedicine program, the rates of hemorrhage observed with either agent were lower than expected based on prior trials and registry data. The more easily prepared tenecteplase was associated with a lower door-to-needle time.

Five comparative cohorts to assess the risk of genital tract infections associated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors initiation in type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To assess the association between SGLT-2 inhibitors initiation and genital tract infections (GTIs) among patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study using administrative healthcare data from Alberta, Canada, and primary care data from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Among new metformin users, we identified new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors and five active comparator cohorts (new users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sulfonylureas (SU), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), thiazolidinediones (TZD) and insulin). The outcome of interest was a composite GTI outcome. In each cohort, we used high-dimensional propensity score matching to adjust for confounding and conditional Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard ratios (HR). We used random-effects meta-analysis to combine aggregate data across databases.

RESULTS

The risk of GTI was higher for SGLT-2 inhibitors users compared with DPP4inhibitor users (pooled HR 2.68, 95% CI 2.19 3.28), SU users (3.29, 2.62-4.13), GLP1-RA users (2.51, 1.90-3.31), TZD users (4.17, 2.46-7.08) and insulin users (1.86, 1.27-2.73).

CONCLUSION

In five comparative cohorts, SGLT-2 inhibitors initiation is associated with a higher risk of GTIs. These findings from real-world data are consistent with placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials.

Comparative safety of istradefylline in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

Introduction

Istradefylline offers a novel mechanism (adenosine A2A receptor antagonism) to treat OFF episodes in Parkinson's disease (PD). It may potentially offer improved tolerability versus other adjuncts, but comparative safety data are lacking.

Methods

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) incorporating RCTs of PD adjuncts until January 10, 2024, was conducted to estimate relative safety. Inconsistency was assessed and heterogeneity evaluated by global I2-statistic and between-study heterogeneity. Incidences of safety outcomes were summarized from RWE identified according to the same criteria.

Results

100 RCTs and 55 RWE publications were identified; 76 RCTs were included in NMAs. Istradefylline demonstrated lower odds of serious AEs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56; 95 % CrI: 0.32, 0.99), treatment-emergent AEs (0.43; 0.25, 0.73), treatment-related AEs (0.33; 0.19, 0.56), hallucinations (0.25; 0.06, 0.97), and withdrawal due to AEs (0.37; 0.19, 0.68) versus amantadine. Istradefylline showed lower odds of dyskinesia (0.63; 0.41, 0.99) and hypotension (0.19; 0.03, 0.82) versus catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitors (COMTi), lower odds of nausea (0.58; 0.33, 0.99) versus dopamine agonists (DA), and lower odds of hypotension (0.09; 0.01, 0.52) versus monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors (MAO-Bi). Sensitivity analysis of RCTs published since 2000 found a reduction in odds of dyskinesia and hallucinations for istradefylline versus DA. RWE were heterogeneous but demonstrated lower incidence of certain AEs with istradefylline, specifically dyskinesia (versus MAO-Bi), somnolence (versus DA and COMTi), peripheral edema and hallucinations (versus amantadine), and nausea (versus all comparators).

Conclusion

Istradefylline exhibits a favorable safety profile versus other PD adjuncts, as demonstrated by RCTs and RWE.

Ustekinumab Versus Anti-tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents as Second-Line Biologics in Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

There are little data on positioning biologics in Crohn's disease (CD).

AIMS

We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab vs tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) agents after first-line treatment with anti-TNF in CD.

METHODS

We used Swedish nationwide registers to identify patients with CD, exposed to anti-TNF who initiated second-line biologic treatment with ustekinumab or second-line anti-TNF therapy. Nearest neighbour 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the groups. The primary outcome was 3-year drug survival used as a proxy for effectiveness. Secondary outcomes included drug survival without hospital admission, CD-related surgery, antibiotics, hospitalization due to infection and exposure to corticosteroids.

RESULTS

Some 312 patients remained after PSM. Drug survival at 3 years was 35% (95% CI 26-44%) in ustekinumab compared to 36% (95% CI 28-44%) in anti-TNF-treated patients (p = 0.72). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in 3-year survival without hospital admission (72% vs 70%, p = 0.99), surgery (87% vs 92%, p = 0.17), hospital admission due to infection (92% vs 92%, p = 0.31) or prescription of antibiotics (49% vs 50%, p = 0.56). The proportion of patients continuing second-line biologic therapy did not differ by reason for ending first-line anti-TNF (lack of response vs intolerance) or by type of first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab vs infliximab).

CONCLUSION

Based on data from Swedish routine care, no clinically relevant differences in effectiveness or safety of second-line ustekinumab vs anti-TNF treatment were observed in patients with CD with prior exposure to anti-TNF.