Search

Background To the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications. Methods and findings For commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004-2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003-2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88-0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [0.76-0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.10] and 1.07 [1.01-1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98-1.13] and 1.11 [1.05-1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics. Conclusions In this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases., Author(s): Rishi J. Desai 1,*, Ameet Sarpatwari 1, Sara Dejene 1, Nazleen F. Khan 1, Joyce Lii 1, James R. Rogers 1, Sarah K. Dutcher 2, Saeid Raofi 3, Justin [...]

Objective: This research aims to evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria on recruitment and observable clinical outcomes of COVID-19 clinical trials using electronic health record (EHR) data.Materials and Methods: On June 18, 2020, we identified frequently used eligibility criteria from all the interventional COVID-19 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 288), including age, pregnancy, oxygen saturation, alanine/aspartate aminotransferase, platelets, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. We applied the frequently used criteria to the EHR data of COVID-19 patients in Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (March 2020-June 2020) and evaluated their impact on patient accrual and the occurrence of a composite endpoint of mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, and in-hospital death.Results: There were 3251 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from the CUIMC EHR included in the analysis. The median follow-up period was 10 days (interquartile range 4-28 days). The composite events occurred in 18.1% (n = 587) of the COVID-19 cohort during the follow-up. In a hypothetical trial with common eligibility criteria, 33.6% (690/2051) were eligible among patients with evaluable data and 22.2% (153/690) had the composite event.Discussion: By adjusting the thresholds of common eligibility criteria based on the characteristics of COVID-19 patients, we could observe more composite events from fewer patients.Conclusions: This research demonstrated the potential of using the EHR data of COVID-19 patients to inform the selection of eligibility criteria and their thresholds, supporting data-driven optimization of participant selection towards improved statistical power of COVID-19 trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Real-world data (RWD), defined as routinely collected healthcare data, can be a potential catalyst for addressing challenges faced in clinical trials. We performed a scoping review of database-specific RWD applications within clinical trial contexts, synthesizing prominent uses and themes.Materials and Methods: Querying 3 biomedical literature databases, research articles using electronic health records, administrative claims databases, or clinical registries either within a clinical trial or in tandem with methodology related to clinical trials were included. Articles were required to use at least 1 US RWD source. All abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Two reviewers independently verified all decisions.Results: Of 2020 screened articles, 89 qualified: 59 articles used electronic health records, 29 used administrative claims, and 26 used registries. Our synthesis was driven by the general life cycle of a clinical trial, culminating into 3 major themes: trial process tasks (51 articles); dissemination strategies (6); and generalizability assessments (34). Despite a diverse set of diseases studied, <10% of trials using RWD for trial process tasks evaluated medications or procedures (5/51). All articles highlighted data-related challenges, such as missing values.Discussion: Database-specific RWD have been occasionally leveraged for various clinical trial tasks. We observed underuse of RWD within conducted medication or procedure trials, though it is subject to the confounder of implicit report of RWD use.Conclusion: Enhanced incorporation of RWD should be further explored for medication or procedure trials, including better understanding of how to handle related data quality issues to facilitate RWD use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific commentaries are expected to play an important role in evidence appraisal, but it is unknown whether this expectation has been fulfilled. This study aims to better understand the role of scientific commentary in evidence appraisal. We queried PubMed for all clinical research articles with accompanying comments and extracted corresponding metadata. Five percent of clinical research studies (N = 130 629) received postpublication comments (N = 171 556), resulting in 178 882 comment-article pairings, with 90% published in the same journal. We obtained 5197 full-text comments for topic modeling and exploratory sentiment analysis. Topics were generally disease specific with only a few topics relevant to the appraisal of studies, which were highly prevalent in letters. Of a random sample of 518 full-text comments, 67% had a supportive tone. Based on our results, published commentary, with the exception of letters, most often highlight or endorse previous publications rather than serve as a prominent mechanism for critical appraisal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This quasi-experimental study evaluated consumer outcomes (i.e., consumer satisfaction, medication compliance, psychosocial improvement, and healthcare cost outcomes) among 119 participants with various mental disorders receiving comprehensive mental health treatment over an 8-month period. Pre-test and post-test outcomes were measured between two groups: those receiving care that entailed ongoing case collaboration between managed care organization and community mental health agency staff (treatment group) and those enrolled in unmanaged traditional fee-for-service Medicaid programs (control group). Results indicated that, for the control group, medication compliance worsened, and group case management and psychiatric follow-up service costs increased. For the treatment group, medication costs increased. These findings suggested that the case collaboration approach may have had an indirect and preventive benefit related to medication compliance and cost reduction. Recommendations for counselor practice, advocacy, and interprofessional mental health care are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Elevated serum uric acid (SUA) levels have been independently associated with cardiovascular disease. Stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography (PET) allows for measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and quantification of global left ventricular coronary flow reserve (CFR). A CFR <2.0 is considered impaired coronary vascular function, and it is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. We evaluated the relationship between SUA and PET-measured markers of coronary vascular function. Methods: We studied adults undergoing a stress myocardial perfusion PET on clinical grounds (1/2006-3/2014) who also had ≥1 SUA measurement within 180 days from the PET date. Multivariable linear regression estimated the association between SUA and PET-derived MBF and CFR. We also stratified analyses by diabetes status. Results: We included 382 patients with mean (SD) age of 68.4 (12.4) years and mean (SD) SUA level of 7.2 (2.6) mg/dl. 36% were female and 29% had gout. Median [IQR] CFR was reduced at 1.6 [1.2, 2.0] and median [IQR] stress MBF was 1.5 [1.1, 2.1] ml/min/g. In the adjusted analysis, SUA was inversely associated with stress MBF (β = -0.14, p = 0.01) but not with CFR. Among patients without diabetes (n = 215), SUA had a negative association with CFR (β = -0.15, p = 0.02) and stress MBF (β = -0.19, p = 0.01) adjusting for age, sex, extent of myocardial scar and ischemia, serum creatinine and gout. In diabetic patients (n = 167), SUA was not associated with either CFR or MBF. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, higher SUA is modestly associated with worse CFR and stress MBF among patients without diabetes.