Search

Data on angioedema risk among sacubitril-valsartan (SV) users in real-world settings are limited. We sought to evaluate the risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) new users separately. We conducted a propensity score–matched cohort study, comparing SV new users (no use of SV, ACE inhibitor, ARB 6 months before) and SV new users with prior use (within 183 or 14 days) of ACE inhibitor or ARB (ACE inhibitor–SV and ARB-SV users; recent ACE inhibitor–SV and recent ARB-SV users, respectively) vs ACE inhibitor and ARB new users separately. Compared with ACE inhibitor, SV new (HR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.11-0.29) and ACE inhibitor–SV users (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.43) showed lower risk of angioedema. On the other hand, there was no difference in angioedema risk when SV new users (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.35-1.01) or ARB-SV users (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.26) were compared with ARB new users. Compared with SV new users, ACE inhibitor–SV users (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.91-2.89) trended toward higher angioedema risk, which intensified when the ACE inhibitor to SV switch occurred within 14 days (recent ACE inhibitor–SV) (HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.11-3.53). Similarly, ARB-SV users (HR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.16-3.54) experienced an increased risk compared with SV new users, which intensified for the more recent switchers (recent ARB-SV) (HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.36-4.43). We did not observe an increased risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB users. However, there was an increased risk of angioedema among SV users who recently switched from ACE inhibitor or ARB compared with SV new users. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A previous FDA study reported a favorable benefit risk for apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in older non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients (≥ 65 years). However, it remains unclear whether this favorable benefit risk persists in other populations including younger users. We examined if a similar benefit risk was observed in the Sentinel System and if it varied by age group. Objective: To examine the risk of ischemic stroke, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in apixaban users compared with warfarin users in Sentinel Distributed Database (SDD). Design and Participants: A retrospective new user cohort study was conducted among patients, 21 years and older initiating apixaban and warfarin for NVAF, between December 28, 2012, and June 30, 2018, in the SDD. Main Measures: Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome (ischemic stroke, GI bleeding, and ICH) in propensity score matched apixaban users compared with the warfarin users. Subgroup analyses by age (21–64, 65–74, and 75+ years) were conducted. Key Results: After matching, 55.3% and 58.4% (n = 55,038) of the apixaban and warfarin users were included in the main analysis. GI bleeding was the most common outcome. The HR (95% CI) for GI bleeding, ICH, and ischemic stroke in apixaban users compared with warfarin users were 0.57 (0.50–0.66), 0.53 (0.40–0.70), and 0.56 (0.45–0.71) respectively. The reduced risk of these outcomes in apixaban compared with warfarin users persisted across age groups. Conclusion: In NVAF patients of all ages initiating either apixaban or warfarin for stroke prevention in the Sentinel System, apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of GI bleeding, ICH, and ischemic stroke compared with warfarin. Among patients less than 65 years of age, apixaban use was associated with a decreased risk of GI bleeding and ischemic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Neurological complications including seizures have been reported with ranolazine. We sought to quantify the risk of seizure-related hospitalizations or emergency department events following ranolazine exposure in the Sentinel System (2006-2015).Study Design and Setting: Eligibility criteria were new use of ranolazine after 183 days washout period and absence of seizure diagnoses, anti-epileptic drugs, or seizure-related disorders during the baseline period.Results: Among 52,155 ranolazine users, we identified 28 seizures in the 1-32 days after new ranolazine dispensing: 12 occurring in days 1-10 (high-risk window), 11 in days 11-20 (moderate-risk window) and 5 in the control window (days 21-32). Assuming an equal likelihood of seizure events across the 32-day observation window, we estimate an attributable risk of 0.9 excess cases per 10,000 exposed users. Using a self-controlled risk interval design with exact logistic regression, seizures were elevated in the high-risk window (relative risk [RR] 2.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-8.33) compared with the control window. No significant increased risk was observed in the moderate window. Half of the seizure cases had a diagnosis of renal disease, although seizure risk was not significant (RR 3.20 [CI 0.82-14.01]). A majority of patients in both risk windows were 75 years or older.Conclusion: Our study suggests risk among younger ranolazine patients is rare. Given the imprecision of the risk estimates, we interpret the elevated seizure risk following ranolazine exposure with caution. Further analysis in a larger elderly population is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent suggestions of therapeutic inequivalence of brand and generic sertraline have raised concerns about disproportionately higher adverse events among generic users.Objective: To assess the impact of confounding in a comparison of the risks of worsening depression and intentional self-harm (ISH) between users of brand name sertraline and its pharmaceutically equivalent authorized generic (AG).Methods: Using a retrospective new-user cohort design, we identified patients with a diagnosis code for depression aged ≥12 years who were continuously enrolled in a Sentinel Data Partner health plan for ≥180 days before their first sertraline dispensing between June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2015. New use was defined as no evidence of sertraline dispensing in the 180 days before index date. We matched each brand name user to up to 10 AG users using propensity scores (PS) and conducted case-centered logistic regression to assess the risks of hospitalized depression and ISH.Results: Before PS matching, brand name users were significantly less likely to be hospitalized for depression [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.94)]. However, in the matched analysis, we observed no statistical difference between brand and AG users [HR = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.59-1.21)]. The risk of ISH did not significantly differ between the exposure groups in unmatched (HR = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.60-1.62) and matched analyses [HR = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.49-1.70).Conclusion: In depressed patients receiving brand versus AG sertraline, patient characteristics confounded the association with hospitalization. Baseline differences were ameliorated by PS matching resulting in no statistical difference between brand and AG sertraline users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor blocker, has approved on July 7, 2015 for the treatment of patients with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

The article discusses a retrospective cohort study to determine the impact of inappropriate antibiotic therapy on hospital stay of patients suffering from Gram-negative sepsis and septic shock. Majority of the patients had nosocomial infections and the most common pathogen was Escherichia coli. he study found that inappropriate treatment increased the length of hospital stay of patients.