Atomoxetine use during a period of FDA actions

Prescriber perceptions of boxed warnings: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

To explore how boxed warning (BW) information fits within the context of prescribers' overall treatment decision-making and communication with patients.

METHODS

In-depth interviews (N = 52) were conducted with primary care providers and specialists. Participants were presented with one of two prescribing scenarios: (1) estrogen vaginal inserts to treat vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) associated with menopause; or (2) direct-acting antivirals (DAA) to treat chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV). The semi-structured interviews explored participants' treatment decision-making within the scenario, reactions to current prescribing information for a product within the FDA-approved drug class, as well as their perceptions of BWs generally.

RESULTS

Across scenarios, providers described that the BW is only one of several factors that influence treatment decision-making. In the VVA scenario, symptom severity, family history, and experience with nonprescription drugs were raised as common factors that influence prescribing considerations; compared to comorbid infections, viral load, and HCV genotype in the HCV scenario. Perceptions of the DAA BW were generally positive or neutral, as many participants found the information important and appropriate. The VVA BW was viewed less favorably, with many participants stating the BW overstates the risk for this drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that BWs are one of several factors that influence providers' treatment decisions, and BW influence largely depends on context. Providers across scenarios expressed notable differences in their perceptions of the risk information provided in the presented BWs; however, across scenarios participants expressed consideration of how patients may perceive the BW.

Evaluation of an air quality warning system for vulnerable and susceptible individuals in Korea: an interrupted time series analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to elucidate the effects of an air quality warning system (AQWS) implemented in January 2015 in Korea by analyzing changes in the incidence and exacerbation rates of environmental diseases.

METHODS

Data from patients with environmental diseases were extracted from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort database from 2010 to 2019, and data on environmental risk factors were acquired from the AirKorea database. Patient and meteorological data were linked based on residential area. An interrupted time series analysis with Poisson segmented regression was used to compare the rates before and after AQWS introduction. Adjustment variables included seasonality, air pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 μm in diameter, and ozone), temperature, and humidity.

RESULTS

After AQWS implementation, the incidence of asthma gradually decreased by 20.5%. Cardiovascular disease and stroke incidence also significantly decreased (by 34.3 and 43.0%, respectively). However, no immediate or gradual decrease was identified in the exacerbation rate of any environmental disease after AQWS implementation. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to age, disability, and health insurance coverage type. Overall, the AQWS effectively mitigated the occurrence of most environmental diseases in Korea. However, the relationships between alarm system implementation and reduced incidence differed among diseases based on the characteristics of vulnerable and sensitive individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that by tailoring the AQWS to demographic and sociological characteristics and providing enhanced education about the warning system, interventions can become an efficient policy tool to decrease air pollution- related health risks.

Retrospective analysis of adverse events associated with non-stimulant ADHD medications reported to the united states food and drug administration

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurobehavioral disorders in children and although stimulant medications remain first line to treat the disorder, some families prefer nonstimulants. The goal is to analyze the adverse events (AE) associated with nonstimulant medications using post-marketing drug surveillance data. We aim to increase awareness and aide patient education. A retrospective study of adverse drug events with atomoxetine, clonidine, and guanfacine was performed using the Federal Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database. Results show that the most commonly reported AEs, as defined by FAERS, were ineffectiveness (9.91-14.15%) fatigue (8.93%), and somnolence (8.8-10.16%). Of those taking atomoxetine, suicidal and self-injurious ideation was reported to a similar degree amongst all age groups. Suicidal ideation was listed within the top 20 most reported AEs for all three medications. It is more likely that some patients will experience milder side effects. We suggest providing these data to patients to help overcome the stigma of starting medication, especially if they prefer nonstimulants. Serious AEs are still reported to a small degree, thus monitoring and consistent patient education remains important. We also recommend educating a wider demographic of patients about recognizing potential development of suicidal thoughts.

Readmissions and costs among younger and older adults for targeted conditions during the enactment of the hospital readmission reduction program

Background

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was introduced to reduce readmission rates among Medicare beneficiaries, however little is known about readmissions and costs for HRRP-targeted conditions in younger populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine readmission trends and costs for targeted conditions during policy implementation among younger and older adults in the U.S.

Methods

We analyzed the Nationwide Readmission Database from January 2010 to September 2015 in younger (18–64 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), pneumonia, and acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Pre- and post-HRRP periods were defined based on implementation of the policy for each condition. Readmission rates were evaluated using an interrupted time series with difference-in-difference analyses and hospital cost differences between early and late readmissions (≤30 vs. > 30 days) were evaluated using generalized linear models.

Results

Overall, this study included 16,884,612 hospitalizations with 3,337,266 readmissions among all age groups and 5,977,177 hospitalizations with 1,104,940 readmissions in those aged 18–64 years. Readmission rates decreased in all conditions. In the HRRP announcement period, readmissions declined significantly for those aged 40–64 years for AMI (p < 0.0001) and HF (p = 0.003). Readmissions decreased significantly in the post-HRRP period for those aged 40–64 years at a slower rate for AMI (p = 0.003) and HF (p = 0.05). Readmission rates among younger patients (18–64 years) varied within all four targeted conditions in HRRP announcement and post-HRRP periods. Adjusted models showed a significantly higher readmission cost in those readmitted within 30 days among younger and older populations for AMI (p < 0.0001), HF (p < 0.0001), pneumonia (p < 0.0001), and AECOPD (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Readmissions for targeted conditions decreased in the U.S. during the enactment of the HRRP policy and younger age groups (< 65 years) not targeted by the policy saw a mixed effect. Healthcare expenditures in younger and older populations were significantly higher for early readmissions with all targeted conditions. Further research is necessary evaluating total healthcare utilization including emergency department visits, observation units, and hospital readmissions in order to better understand the extent of the HRRP on U.S. healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06399-z.

FDA postmarketing safety labeling changes: What have we learned since 2010 about impacts on prescribing rates, drug utilization, and treatment outcomes

PURPOSE

Prior literature reviews have identified gaps in understanding of how postmarketing safety labeling changes and related FDA communications impact key clinical and behavioral outcomes. We conducted a review of newly published studies on this topic to determine what new evidence exists and to identify which gaps may still remain. We believe that this information can support FDA as it develops and implements future risk communication approaches.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2017 that examined the impact of labeling changes or associated FDA safety-related communications. For each study, we extracted information on research design and findings for key clinical outcomes and behaviors. We also conducted a ROBINS-I review to identify potential for bias in the research design of each study.

RESULTS

We found that the estimated impacts of FDA labeling changes on several key outcomes-including adverse events-varied. Labeling changes also yielded unintended consequences on drug prescribing in some cases, despite low provider adherence. Finally, some studies we reviewed exhibited potential for bias due to confounding, among other factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The new studies we reviewed contain many of the same limitations identified in previously published reviews. While there are several challenges to conducting this research there is substantial room for improvement in the quality of the evidence base. More information, particularly with respect to the types of populations and medications affected by labeling changes, is needed to support the development of more effective and targeted safety communications.

Do drug-related safety warnings have the expected impact on drug therapy? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The need for drug-related safety warnings is undisputed, and their impact should also be evaluated. This systematic review investigates and assesses the impact of safety warnings on drug therapy.

METHODS

Studies published in English between January 1998 and December 2018 were searched in EMBASE and MEDLINE, complemented by manual search. Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies with a before/after component, and case-control studies were included, selected to predefined criteria, and assessed for their reporting and methodological quality.

RESULTS

Out of 7454 references identified, 72 studies were included. A total of 28/72 (39%) studies described the impact of safety warnings on drug therapy as being effective, whereas 12/72 (17%) studies did not. Further, 26/72 (36%) studies described a partial implementation of the warnings (one part of the warning had an impact on drug therapy and another did not). Unintended effects were investigated in 6/72 (8%) studies. While 34 (47%) studies examined safety warnings on psychotropic drugs using an interrupted time series (ITS) design (53%), a before/after (26%), and a time series design (21%), 38 (53%) studied other substances using an ITS design (34%), a before/after (40%), and a time series design (26%). The proportion of an effective impact on drug therapy was lower in the "psychotropic drugs" group (23%) than in the "others" group (53%).

CONCLUSION

Drug-related safety warnings induce intended and unintended effects. The included studies are of broadly varying methodological quality. To better compare their effectiveness, studies should be conducted using standardised procedures.

Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions - Systematic review and methodological considerations

AIMS

Evaluating the public health impact of regulatory interventions is important but there is currently no common methodological approach to guide this evaluation. This systematic review provides a descriptive overview of the analytical methods for impact research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles with an empirical analysis evaluating the impact of European Union or non-European Union regulatory actions to safeguard public health published until March 2017. References from systematic reviews and articles from other known sources were added. Regulatory interventions, data sources, outcomes of interest, methodology and key findings were extracted.

RESULTS

From 1246 screened articles, 229 were eligible for full-text review and 153 articles in English language were included in the descriptive analysis. Over a third of articles studied analgesics and antidepressants. Interventions most frequently evaluated are regulatory safety communications (28.8%), black box warnings (23.5%) and direct healthcare professional communications (10.5%); 55% of studies measured changes in drug utilization patterns, 27% evaluated health outcomes, and 18% targeted knowledge, behaviour or changes in clinical practice. Unintended consequences like switching therapies or spill-over effects were rarely evaluated. Two-thirds used before-after time series and 15.7% before-after cross-sectional study designs. Various analytical approaches were applied including interrupted time series regression (31.4%), simple descriptive analysis (28.8%) and descriptive analysis with significance tests (23.5%).

CONCLUSION

Whilst impact evaluation of pharmacovigilance and product-specific regulatory interventions is increasing, the marked heterogeneity in study conduct and reporting highlights the need for scientific guidance to ensure robust methodologies are applied and systematic dissemination of results occurs.

Increased Post-procedural Non-gastrointestinal Adverse Events After Outpatient Colonoscopy in High-risk Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The incidence and predictors of non-gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) after colonoscopy are not well-understood. We studied the effects of antithrombotic agents, cardiopulmonary comorbidities, and age on risk of non-GI AEs after colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective longitudinal analysis to assess the diagnosis, procedure, and prescription drug codes in a United States commercial claims database (March 2010-March 2012). Data from patients at increased risk (n = 82,025; defined as patients with pulmonary comorbidities or cardiovascular disease requiring antithrombotic medications) were compared with data from 398,663 average-risk patients. In a 1:1 matched analysis, 51,932 patients at increased risk, examined by colonoscopy, were compared with 51,932 matched (on the basis of age, sex, and comorbidities) patients at increased risk who did not undergo colonoscopy. We tracked cardiac, pulmonary, and neurovascular events 1-30 days after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Thirty days after outpatient colonoscopy, non-GI AEs were significantly higher in patients taking antithrombotic medications (7.3%; odds ratio [OR], 10.75; 95% confidence interval, 10.13-11.42) or those with pulmonary comorbidities (1.8%; OR, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 2.27-2.62) vs average-risk patients (0.7%) and in patients 60-69 years old (OR, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-2.42) or 70 years or older (OR, 6.45; 95% confidence interval, 5.89-7.06), compared with patients younger than 50 years. The 30-day incidence of non-GI AEs in patients at increased risk who underwent colonoscopy was also significantly higher than in matched patients at increased risk who did not undergo colonoscopy in the anticoagulant group (OR, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-2.65) and in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease group (OR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased number of comorbidities and older age (older than 60 years) are associated with increased risk of non-GI AEs after colonoscopy. These findings indicate the importance of determining comorbid risk and evaluating antithrombotic management before colonoscopy.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Evaluation Study: Impact on Specialty Behavioral Health Care Utilization and Spending Among Carve-In Enrollees

OBJECTIVE

The federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) sought to eliminate historical disparities between insurance coverage for behavioral health (BH) treatment and coverage for medical treatment. Our objective was to evaluate MHPAEA's impact on BH expenditures and utilization among "carve-in" enrollees.

METHODS

We received specialty BH insurance claims and eligibility data from Optum, sampling 5,987,776 adults enrolled in self-insured plans from large employers. An interrupted time series study design with segmented regression analysis estimated monthly time trends of per-member spending and use before (2008-2009), during (2010), and after (2011-2013) MHPAEA compliance (N=179,506,951 member-month observations). Outcomes included: total, plan, patient out-of-pocket spending; outpatient utilization (assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits, medication management, individual and family psychotherapy); intermediate care utilization (structured outpatient, day treatment, residential); and inpatient utilization.

RESULTS

MHPAEA was associated with increases in monthly per-member total spending, plan spending, assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits [respective immediate increases of: $1.05 (P=0.02); $0.88 (P=0.04); 0.00045 visits (P=0.00)], and individual psychotherapy visits [immediate increase of 0.00578 visits (P=0.00) and additional increases of 0.00017 visits/mo (P=0.03)].

CONCLUSIONS

MHPAEA was associated with modest increases in total and plan spending and outpatient utilization; for example, in July 2012 predicted per-enrollee plan spending was $4.92 without MHPAEA and $6.14 with MHPAEA. Efforts should focus on understanding how other barriers to BH care unaddressed by MHPAEA may affect access/utilization. Future research should evaluate effects produced by the Affordable Care Act's inclusion of BH care as an essential health benefit and expansion of MHPAEA protections to the individual and small group markets.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral health utilization and expenditures among "carve-out" enrollees

Interrupted time series with and without controls was used to evaluate whether the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and its Interim Final Rule increased the probability of specialty behavioral health treatment and levels of utilization and expenditures among patients receiving treatment. Linked insurance claims, eligibility, plan and employer data from 2008 to 2013 were used to estimate segmented regression analyses, allowing for level and slope changes during the transition (2010) and post-MHPAEA (2011-2013) periods. The sample included 1,812,541 individuals ages 27-64 (49,968,367 person-months) in 10,010 Optum "carve-out" plans. Two-part regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations were used to estimate expenditures by payer and outpatient, intermediate and inpatient service use. We found little evidence that MHPAEA increased utilization significantly, but somewhat more robust evidence that costs shifted from patients to plans. Thus the primary impact of MHPAEA among carve-out enrollees may have been a reduction in patient financial burden.

Prescribing patterns for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications among children and adolescents in Korea, 2007-2011

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication use among children and adolescents in Korea between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011.

METHODS

Using the Korea National Health Insurance claims database, we identified patients between one and 17 years of age who had at least one medical claim for the diagnosis of ADHD (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision: F90.0). The annual prevalence of ADHD diagnoses was calculated, using national census data from Statistics Korea on the population aged between one and 17 years as the denominator. The prevalence was age-standardized using the 2010 population as the standard population. The number of patients who were treated with methylphenidate and/or atomoxetine and the prevalence of total patients with ADHD that were treated with either drug were also calculated for each year. All analyses were stratified according to gender and age group (1-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-17 years).

RESULTS

The number of patients diagnosed with ADHD increased from 72,704 persons (0.71%) in 2007 to 85,468 persons (0.93%) in 2011. The annual age-standardized prevalence of ADHD diagnoses increased from 0.67% in 2007 to 0.94% in 2011. The prevalence of methylphenidate use among children and adolescents with ADHD decreased from 73.91% in 2007 to 70.33% in 2011, whereas that of atomoxetine use increased from 5.77% in 2009 to 13.09% in 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

While methylphenidate remains the most commonly prescribed ADHD drug, the use of atomoxetine has increased.

Risk of Suicidal Events With Atomoxetine Compared to Stimulant Treatment: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant effects on increased suicidality in children have raised public concern in recent years. Approved in 2002 for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treatment, the selective noradrenalin-reuptake-inhibitor atomoxetine was initially investigated for the treatment of depression. In post-hoc analyses of clinical trial data, atomoxetine has been associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation in children and adolescents. We analyzed whether the observed increased risk of suicidal ideation in clinical trials translates into an increased risk of suicidal events in pediatric patients treated with atomoxetine compared with stimulants in 26 Medicaid programs.

METHODS

Employing a retrospective cohort design, we used propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of suicide and suicide attempt in pediatric patients initiating treatment with atomoxetine compared with stimulants from 2002 to 2006.

RESULTS

The first-line treatment cohort included 279 315 patients. During the first year of follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratio for current atomoxetine use compared with current stimulant use was 0.95 (95% CI 0.47-1.92, P = .88). The second-line treatment cohort included 220 215 patients. During the first year of follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratio for current atomoxetine use compared with current stimulant use was 0.71 (95% CI 0.30-1.67, P = .43).

CONCLUSIONS

First- and second-line treatment of youths age 5 to 18 with atomoxetine compared with stimulants was not significantly associated with an increased risk of suicidal events. The low incidence of suicide and suicide attempt resulted in wide confidence intervals and did not allow stratified analysis of high-risk groups or assessment of suicidal risk associated with long-term use of atomoxetine.

Atomoxetine pharmacogenetics: associations with pharmacokinetics, treatment response and tolerability

Atomoxetine is indicated for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and is predominantly metabolized by the CYP2D6 enzyme. Differences in pharmacokinetic parameters as well as clinical treatment outcomes across CYP2D6 genotype groups have resulted in dosing recommendations within the product label, but clinical studies supporting the use of genotype guided dosing are currently lacking. Furthermore, pharmacokinetic and clinical studies have primarily focused on extensive as compared with poor metabolizers, with little information known about other metabolizer categories as well as genes involved in the pharmacodynamics of atomoxetine. This review describes the pharmacogenetic associations with atomoxetine pharmacokinetics, treatment response and tolerability with considerations for the clinical utility of this information.

Trends in the parent-report of health care provider-diagnosed and medicated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: United States, 2003-2011

OBJECTIVE

Data from the 2003 and 2007 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) reflect the increasing prevalence of parent-reported attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis and treatment by health care providers. This report updates these prevalence estimates for 2011 and describes temporal trends.

METHOD

Weighted analyses were conducted with 2011 NSCH data to estimate prevalence of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis, current ADHD, current medication treatment, ADHD severity, and mean age of diagnosis for U.S. children/adolescents aged 4 to 17 years and among demographic subgroups. A history of ADHD diagnosis (2003-2011), as well as current ADHD and medication treatment prevalence (2007-2011), were compared using prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In 2011, 11% of children/adolescents aged 4 to 17 years had ever received an ADHD diagnosis (6.4 million children). Among those with a history of ADHD diagnosis, 83% were reported as currently having ADHD (8.8%); 69% of children with current ADHD were taking medication for ADHD (6.1%, 3.5 million children). A parent-reported history of ADHD increased by 42% from 2003 to 2011. Prevalence of a history of ADHD, current ADHD, medicated ADHD, and moderate/severe ADHD increased significantly from 2007 estimates. Prevalence of medicated ADHD increased by 28% from 2007 to 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 2 million more U.S. children/adolescents aged 4 to 17 years had been diagnosed with ADHD in 2011, compared to 2003. More than two-thirds of those with current ADHD were taking medication for treatment in 2011. This suggests an increasing burden of ADHD on the U.S. health care system. Efforts to further understand ADHD diagnostic and treatment patterns are warranted.

Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care quality improvements

Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis is arguably the strongest quasi-experimental research design. ITS is particularly useful when a randomized trial is infeasible or unethical. The approach usually involves constructing a time series of population-level rates for a particular quality improvement focus (eg, rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] medication initiation) and testing statistically for a change in the outcome rate in the time periods before and time periods after implementation of a policy/program designed to change the outcome. In parallel, investigators often analyze rates of negative outcomes that might be (unintentionally) affected by the policy/program. We discuss why ITS is a useful tool for quality improvement. Strengths of ITS include the ability to control for secular trends in the data (unlike a 2-period before-and-after t test), ability to evaluate outcomes using population-level data, clear graphical presentation of results, ease of conducting stratified analyses, and ability to evaluate both intended and unintended consequences of interventions. Limitations of ITS include the need for a minimum of 8 time periods before and 8 after an intervention to evaluate changes statistically, difficulty in analyzing the independent impact of separate components of a program that are implemented close together in time, and existence of a suitable control population. Investigators must also be careful not to make individual-level inferences when population-level rates are used to evaluate interventions (though ITS can be used with individual-level data). A brief description of ITS is provided, including a fully implemented (but hypothetical) study of the impact of a program to reduce ADHD medication initiation in children younger than 5 years old and insured by Medicaid in Washington State. An example of the database needed to conduct an ITS is provided, as well as SAS code to implement a difference-in-differences model using preschool-age children in California as a comparison group.