Use of health care databases to support supplemental indications of approved medications

JAMA Internal Medicine

Volumn 178, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 55-63

  Fralick, Michael ^a,b,c   Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a,b   Avorn, Jerry ^a,b   Schneeweiss, Sebastian ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; DIURETIC AGENT; PRESCRIPTION DRUG; RAMIPRIL; TELMISARTAN; ANGIOTENSIN 1 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ANGINA PECTORIS; ANGIONEUROTIC EDEMA; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG USE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE DATABASE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEART DEATH; HEART INFARCTION; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK REDUCTION; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SMOKING; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION STUDY; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; MULTICENTER STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

ANGIOTENSIN II TYPE 1 RECEPTOR BLOCKERS; ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; RAMIPRIL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TELMISARTAN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85040011800     PISSN: 21686106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3919     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. New “21st century cures” legislation. JAMA. 2017;317(6):581-582.
2. Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293-2297.
3. Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):143-156.
4. Fralick M, Kesselheim AS. Periodic benefit-risk evaluation reports have substantial promise to guide patient care and should be made publicly available. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(5): 597-599.
5. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(9):915-920.
6. Schneeweiss S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(8):858-868.
7. Goodman SN, Schneeweiss S, Baiocchi M. Using design thinking to differentiate useful from misleading evidence in observational research. JAMA. 2017;317(7):705-707.
8. Suissa S. Immortal time bias in pharmaco-epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167 (4):492-499.
9. Wang B, Kesselheim AS. Characteristics of efficacy evidence supporting approval of supplemental indications for prescription drugs in United States, 2005-14: systematic review. BMJ. 2015;351:h4679.
10. Berndt ER, Cockburn IM, Grépin KA. The impact of incremental innovation in biopharmaceuticals: drug utilisation in original and supplemental indications. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(suppl 2):69-86.
11. Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, et al; ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(15):1547-1559.
12. McCormick N, Lacaille D, Bhole V, Avina-Zubieta JA. Validity of myocardial infarction diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92286.
13. McCormick N, Bhole V, Lacaille D, Avina-Zubieta JA. Validity of diagnostic codes for acute stroke in administrative databases: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135834.
14. McCormick N, Lacaille D, Bhole V, Avina-Zubieta JA. Validity of heart failure diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104519.
15. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58 (4):323-337.
16. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083-3107.
17. Wang SV, Verpillat P, Rassen JA, Patrick A, Garry EM, Bartels DB. Transparency and reproducibility of observational cohort studies using large healthcare databases. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(3):325-332.
18. Fralick M, Schneeweiss S, Patorno E. Risk of diabetic ketoacidosis after initiation of an sglt2 inhibitor. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2300-2302.
19. Kim SC, Solomon DH, Rogers JR, et al. Cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multi-database cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(6):1154-1164.
20. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments, part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(6):455-463.
21. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Ethical and scientific issues in studying the safety of approved drugs. The national academy of press website. May 2012. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13219/ethical-and -scientific-issues-in-studying-the-safety-of -approved-drugs. Accessed June 7, 2017.
22. Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S. When and how can real world data analyses substitute for randomized controlled trials? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;102 (6):924-933. doi:10.1002/cpt.857
23. Schneeweiss S, Seeger JD, Landon J, Walker AM. Aprotinin during coronary-artery bypass grafting and risk of death. N Engl J Med. 2008;358 (8):771-783.
24. Choi N-K, Solomon DH, Tsacogianis TN, Landon JE, Song HJ, Kim SC. Comparative safety and effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with osteoporosis: a cohort study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(3):611-617.
25. Patorno E, Goldfine A, Schneeweiss S, Glynn R, Liu J, Kim S. Safety of canagliflozin vs. other antidiabetic agents in routine care. Paper presented at: 77th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association; June 9, 2017; San Diego, California.
26. Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, et al. Stroke, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly medicare beneficiaries treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1662-1671.
27. Gagne JJ, Choudhry NK, Kesselheim AS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name statins on patient outcomes: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):400-407.
28. Wang PS, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, et al. Risk of death in elderly users of conventional vs. atypical antipsychotic medications. N Engl J Med. 2005;353 (22):2335-2341.
29. Ray WA, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Atypical antipsychotic drugs and the risk of sudden cardiac death. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):225-235.
30. Finucane FF, Madans JH, Bush TL, Wolf PH, Kleinman JC. Decreased risk of stroke among postmenopausal hormone users: results from a national cohort. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(1):73-79.
31. Blais L, Desgagné A, LeLorier J. 3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors and the risk of cancer: a nested case-control study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(15): 2363-2368.
32. Wassertheil-Smoller S, Hendrix SL, Limacher M, et al; WHI Investigators. Effect of estrogen plus progestin on stroke in postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003;289(20):2673-2684.
33. Dale KM, Coleman CI, Henyan NN, Kluger J, White CM. Statins and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(1):74-80.
34. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286(7):821-830.
35. Gruber S, Chakravarty A, Heckbert SR, et al. Design and analysis choices for safety surveillance evaluations need to be tuned to the specifics of the hypothesized drug-outcome association. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(9):973-981.
36. Moride Y, Abenhaim L. Evidence of the depletion of susceptibles effect in non-experimental pharmacoepidemiologic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(7):731-737.
37. Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Stürmer T, et al. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Med Care. 2007;45(10)(suppl 2):S131-S142.
38. Setoguchi S, Warner Stevenson L, Stewart GC, et al. Influence of healthy candidate bias in assessing clinical effectiveness for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: cohort study of older patients with heart failure. BMJ. 2014;348:g2866.
39. D’Agostino RB Sr, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues—the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003;22(2):169-186.
40. Snapinn SM. Noninferiority trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2000;1(1):19-21.
41. Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Shah ND, O’Donnell M, Guyatt GH, et al. Adjusted analyses in studies addressing therapy and harm users’ guides to the medical literature clinical scenario. JAMA. 2017;317 (7):748-759.
42. Fonarow GC. Randomization—there is no substitute. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(6):633-635.
43. Freemantle N, Marston L, Walters K, Wood J, Reynolds MR, Petersen I. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research. BMJ. 2013;347:f6409.
44. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
45. Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. In: Bero L, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2014:MR000034.
46. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342(25):1887-1892.
47. Hemkens LG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JPA. Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials: meta-epidemiological survey. BMJ. 2016;352:i493.
48. Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? a systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893-1901.