Search

PURPOSE Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), indicated for treating some patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), may increase the risk of tumor progression and mortality. FDA required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to mitigate these risks. We assessed REMS impact on ESA administration and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion as surrogate metrics for REMS effectiveness. METHODS Retrospective cohort study including data from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2018 for beneficiaries ≥65 years enrolled in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Parts A/B with a cancer diagnosis; patients with other indications for ESA use were excluded. Study time was divided into five periods demarcated by issuance of CMS National Coverage Determination (NCD) (Pre-NCD, Pre-REMS) and REMS milestones (Grace Period, REMS, post-REMS). Study outcomes were monthly proportion of chemotherapy episodes (CTEs) with concomitant ESA administration, with post-CTE ESA administration, and with RBC transfusions. RESULTS Of 1 778 855 beneficiaries treated with CT, 308742 received concomitant ESA for CIA. The proportion of CTEs with concomitant and post-CTE ESA administration decreased Pre-REMS (9.0 percentage points [pp] and 3.5 pp, respectively). There were no significant post-REMS changes in the proportion of CTEs with concomitant (0.0 pp) and post-CTE ESA administration (0.1 pp). Fluctuation in RBC transfusions was

Purpose To identify and analyze postmarketing cases of complex sleep behaviors (CSBs) resulting in serious injuries, including death, associated with eszopiclone, zaleplon, or zolpidem (Z-drugs). Methods Retrospective analysis of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 16 December 1992 through 27 February 2018 and medical literature using PubMed and EMBASE. We used random sampling and descriptive statistics. Results We identified 66 cases that met inclusion and exclusion criteria, four of which were identified in the medical literature. Twenty cases reported death and 46 cases reported serious injuries in association with CSBs occurring after the use of a Z-drug. Fatal cases described events, such as carbon monoxide poisoning, drowning, falls, hypothermia, motor vehicle collisions, and apparent completed suicide. Nonfatal cases resulting in serious injuries described events, such as accidental overdoses, falls, gunshot wounds, hypothermia, third-degree burns, and self-injuries or suicide attempts. Twenty-two cases reported a previous episode of a CSB while taking a Z-drug prior to the event reported in this case series. Conclusions The FAERS and medical literature cases support the need for increased awareness of the consequences that may occur because of CSBs associated with the use of Z-drugs. Therefore, to protect public health, regulatory actions were taken, including adding a Boxed Warning, a Contraindication in patients who have experienced a prior episode of a CSB with a Z-drug, and updating the existing Warnings and Precautions. An FDA Drug Safety Communication was also disseminated to alert healthcare professionals and the public of this potential risk.

Purpose The US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel system developed tools for sequential surveillance. Methods In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, we sequentially compared outcomes for new users of rivaroxaban versus warfarin, employing propensity score matching and Cox regression. A total of 36 173 rivaroxaban and 79 520 warfarin initiators were variable-ratio matched within 2 monitoring periods. Results Statistically significant signals were observed for ischemic stroke (IS) (first period) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (second period) favoring rivaroxaban, and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) (second period) favoring warfarin. In follow-up analyses using primary position diagnoses from inpatient encounters for increased definition specificity, the hazard ratios (HR) for rivaroxaban vs warfarin new users were 0.61 (0.47, 0.79) for IS, 1.47 (1.29, 1.67) for GIB, and 0.71 (0.50, 1.01) for ICH. For GIB, the HR varied by age

Purpose Population-based prescription opioid abuse studies in which one drug is compared to another, or drugs are compared across time, often account for the availability of those drugs in the community. The objective of this investigation is to assess consistency in the relative abuse ratios (RARs) across different approaches for adjusting for drug availability. Methods For the years 2004 through 2010, RARs for each of four prescription opioids (hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and morphine) were calculated using negative binomial regression. Measures of abuse (outcome) were misuse/abuse-related emergency department visits obtained from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Measures of drug availability (offsets) were drug utilization estimates obtained from IMS Health. Separate regression models were run using each of five measures of drug utilization: unique patients (URDD), prescriptions dispensed (RX), tablets dispensed (TD), kilograms (KGs) sold, and morphine-equivalents (MEs) of kilograms sold. These results were compared for consistency. Results Aside from oxycodone-combination products, across molecules, RARs adjusted by RXs, TDs, and URDDs were generally similar to each other while RARs adjusted by KGs and MEs were different. For example, compared to hydrocodone, oxycodone had statistically significantly increased RARs of 3.6 (95%CI: 2.0–6.5), 3.5 (95%CI: 1.9–6.4), and 2.7 (95%CI: 1.5–5.0) when adjusted by URDDs, RXs, and TDs, respectively, but not when adjusted by KGs or MEs. Conclusions Different drug utilization adjustment approaches may yield inconsistent RAR estimates in population-based prescription opioid abuse analyses. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.