THE USE OF JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS ANTI-INTERLEUKIN THERAPY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH COVID-19: PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGICAL SRUDY

The objective of this study was to assess the volume of consumption of anti-interleukins and janus kinase inhibitors in the period 2018–2021, used as well as preventive pathogenetic therapy of COVID-19.Materials and methods. Based on actual sales data in the segments of public procurement (including regional and federal preferential drug provision) and retail sales segment in the period 2018–2021, obtained from the IQVIA database. All data was recalculated into the number of established daily doses (DDDs), with the calculation of pharmacoepidemiological indicators «Incidence of prescribing drugs», «Cumulative risk of prescribing drugs», as well as «Prescribing prevalence per year» for tocilizumab, olokizumab, levilimab, sarilumab, kanakinumab, anakinra, baricitinib, tofacitinib and upadacitinib. Results and discussion. The growth of total sales volumes was demonstrated in all market segments, but mostly in the segment of regional purchases, primarily related to the purchase of these groups of medicines for COVID-19 therapy in the period 2020–2021. It was demonstrated that the increase in the number of cases, accompanied by the expansion of prescribing preventive pathogenetic therapy, led to a twofold increase in the number of new cases of prescribing of janus kinase inhibitors and an increase in this indicator for anti-interleukins by 1.5 times, taking into account the estimated number of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. The cumulative risk of prescribing these classes of drugs increased proportionally: for JAK inhibitors from 14 to 32%, and for anti-IL drugs from 38 to 69%. Calculations showed that the proportion of people over 18 years of age in the Russian Federation who received at least one dose of janus kinase inhibitors and anti-interleukins increased many times, in 1000 times and 500 times. Conclusions. Taking into account the expansion of the use of these groups of medicines, careful monitoring of information about their safety is required. © 2023, HIV Infection and Immunosuppressive Disorders.All Rights Reserved.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns on the consumption of anxiolytics, hypnotics and antidepressants according to age groups: a French nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated sanitary measures on mental health, especially among adolescents and young adults. Such a context may raise many concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic long-term psychological effects. An analysis of administrative databases could be an alternative and complementary approach to medical interview-based epidemiological surveys to monitor the mental health of the population. We conducted a nationwide study to describe the consumption of anxiolytics, antidepressants and hypnotics during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the five previous years. METHODS: A historic cohort study was conducted by extracting and analysing data from the French health insurance database between 1 January 2015 and 28 February 2021. Individuals were classified into five age-based classes. Linear regression models were performed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period on the number of drug consumers, in introducing an interaction term between time and COVID-19 period. RESULTS: Since March 2020, in all five age groups and all three drug categories studied, the number of patients reimbursed weekly has increased compared to the period from January 2015 to February 2020. The youngest the patients, the more pronounced the magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring the consumption of psychiatric medications could be of great interest as reliable indicators are essential for planning public health strategies. A post-crisis policy including reliable monitoring of mental health must be anticipated.

Impact of COVID-19 epidemic on antihypertensive drug treatment disruptions: results from a nationwide interrupted time-series analysis.

Background: The COVID-19 epidemic has disrupted care and access to care in many ways. It was accompanied by an excess of cardiovascular drug treatment discontinuations. We sought to investigate a deeper potential impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on antihypertensive drug treatment disruptions by assessing whether the epidemic induced some changes in the characteristics of disruptions in terms of duration, treatment outcome, and patient characteristics. Methods: From March 2018 to February 2021, a repeated cohort analysis was performed using French national health insurance databases. The impact of the epidemic on treatment discontinuations and resumption of antihypertensive medications was assessed using preformed interrupted time series analyses either on a quarterly basis. Results: Among all adult patients on antihypertensive medication, we identified 2,318,844 (18.7%) who discontinued their antihypertensive treatment during the first blocking period in France. No differences were observed between periods in the characteristics of patients who interrupted their treatment or in the duration of treatment disruptions. The COVID-19 epidemic was not accompanied by a change in the proportion of patients who fully resumed treatment after a disruption, neither in level nor in trend/slope [change in level: 2.66 (-0.11; 5.42); change in slope: -0.67 (-1.54; 0.20)]. Results were similar for the proportion of patients who permanently discontinued treatment within 1 year of disruption [level change: -0.21 (-2.08; 1.65); slope change: 0.24 (-0.40; 0.87)]. Conclusion: This study showed that, although it led to an increase in cardiovascular drug disruptions, the COVID-19 epidemic did not change the characteristics of these. First, disruptions were not prolonged, and post-disruption treatment outcomes remained unchanged. Second, patients who experienced antihypertensive drug disruptions during the COVID-19 outbreak were essentially similar to those who experienced disruptions before it.

Thrombotic events following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Aotearoa New Zealand: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: An association between thrombotic events and SARS-CoV-2 infection and the adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines has been established, leading to concern over the risk of thrombosis after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of arterial thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), splanchnic thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) following BNT162b2 vaccination in New Zealand. METHODS: This was a self-controlled case series using national hospitalisation and immunisation records to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR). The study population included individuals aged ≥12 years, unvaccinated, or vaccinated with BNT162b2, who were hospitalised with one of the thrombotic events of interest from 19 February 2021 through 19 February 2022. The risk period was 0-21 days after receiving a primary or booster dose of BNT162b2. RESULTS: 6039 individuals were hospitalised with one of the thrombotic events examined, including 5127 with VTE, 605 with arterial thrombosis, 272 with splanchnic thrombosis, and 35 with CVT. The proportion of individuals vaccinated with at least one dose of BNT162b2 ranged from 82.7 % to 91.4 %. Compared with the control unexposed period, the IRR (95 % CI) of VTE, arterial thrombosis, splanchnic thrombosis, and CVT were 0.87 (0.76-1.00), 0.73 (0.56-0.95), 0.71 (0.43-1.16), and 0.87 (0.31-2.50) in the 21 days after BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. There was no statistically significant increased risk of thrombosis following BNT162b2 in different ethnic groups in New Zealand. CONCLUSION: The BNT162b2 vaccine was not found to be associated with thrombosis in the general population or different ethnic groups in New Zealand, providing reassurance for the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Dispensing of psychotropic medications to Australian children and adolescents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2013-2021: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine longitudinal patterns of dispensing of antidepressant, anxiolytic, antipsychotic, psychostimulant, and hypnotic/sedative medications to children and adolescents in Australia during 2013-2021. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of 10% random sample of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) dispensing data. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING: People aged 18 years or younger dispensed PBS-subsidised psychotropic medications in Australia, 2013-2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population prevalence of dispensing of psychotropic medications to children and adolescents, by psychotropic class, gender, and age group (0-6, 7-12, 13-18 years). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of psychotropic dispensing to children and adolescents was 33.8 per 1000 boys and 25.2 per 1000 girls in 2013, and 60.0 per 1000 boys and 48.3 per 1000 girls in 2021. The prevalence of psychotropic polypharmacy was 5.4 per 1000 boys and 3.7 per 1000 girls in 2013, and 10.4 per 1000 boys and 8.3 per 1000 girls in 2021. Prevalent dispensing during 2021 was highest for psychostimulants (boys, 44.0 per 1000; girls, 17.4 per 1000) and antidepressants (boys, 20.4 per 1000; girls, 33.8 per 1000). During 2021, the prevalence of dispensing was higher than predicted by extrapolation of 2013-2019 data for many classes, including antidepressants (boys: +6.1%; 95% CI, 1.1-11.1%; girls: +22.2%; 95% CI, 17.4-26.9%), and psychostimulants (boys: +14.5%; 95% CI, 8.0-21.1%; girls: +27.7%; 95% CI, 18.9-36.6%). The increases were greatest for girls aged 13-18 years (antidepressants: +20.3%; 95% CI, 16.9-23.7%; psychostimulants: +39.0%; 95% CI, 27.9-50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of both psychotropic dispensing and psychotropic polypharmacy for children and adolescents were twice as high in 2021 as in 2013. The reasons and appropriateness of the marked increases in psychotropic dispensing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to adolescent girls, should be investigated.

Acute renal failure and cardiac arrhythmias associated with remdesivir use in patients with COVID-19 infections: Analysis using the US FDA adverse event reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Recently, antivirals, including remdesivir, have been repurposed to treat COVID-19 infections. Initial concerns have been raised about the adverse renal and cardiac events associated with remdesivir. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse the adverse renal and cardiac events associated with remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 infections using the US FDA adverse event reporting system. METHOD: A case/non-case method was used to determine adverse drug events associated with remdesivir as the primary suspect drug between January 1, 2020, and November 11, 2021, for patients with COVID-19 infections. Cases were reports for remdesivir with ≥1 ADEs as preferred terms included in the Medical Dictionary of Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system organ classes 'Renal and urinary disorders' or 'cardiac' disorders. To measure disproportionality in reporting of ADEs, frequentist approaches, including the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) and reporting odds ratio (ROR), were used. The empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean (EBGM) score and information component (IC) value were calculated using a Bayesian approach. A signal was defined as the lower limit of 95% confidence intervals of ROR ≥ 2, PRR ≥ 2, IC > 0, and EBGM > 1 for ADEs with ≥4 reports. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken by excluding reports for non-Covid indications and medications strongly associated with AKI and cardiac arrhythmias. RESULTS: In the main analysis for remdesivir use in patients with COVID-19 infections, we identified 315 adverse cardiac events comprising 31 different MeDRA PTs and 844 adverse renal events comprising 13 different MeDRA PTs. Regarding adverse renal events, disproportionality signals were noted for "renal failure" (ROR = 2.8 (2.03-3.86); EBGM = 1.92 (1.58-2.31), "acute kidney injury" (ROR = 16.11 (12.52-20.73); EBGM = 2.81 (2.57-3.07), "renal impairment" (ROR = 3.45 (2.68-4.45); EBGM = 2.02 (1.74-2.33). Regarding adverse cardiac events, strong disproportionality signals were noted for "electrocardiogram QT prolonged" (ROR = 6.45 (2.54-16.36); EBGM = 2.04 (1.65-2.51), "pulseless electrical activity" (ROR = 43.57 (13.64-139.20); EBGM = 2.44 (1.74-3.33), "sinus bradycardia" (ROR = 35.86 (11.16-115.26); EBGM = 2.82 (2.23-3.53), "ventricular tachycardia" (ROR = 8.73 (3.55-21.45); EBGM = 2.52 (1.89-3.31). The risk of AKI and cardiac arrythmias were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This hypothesis-generating study identified AKI and cardiac arrhythmias associated with remdesivir use in patients with COVID-19 infections. The relationship between AKI and cardiac arrhythmias should be further investigated using registries or large clinical data to assess the impact of age, genetics, comorbidity, and the severity of Covid infections as potential confounders.

Anti-dementia drugs: a descriptive study of the prescription pattern in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are currently the only anti-dementia drugs (ADDs) approved for treating Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Italy. This nationwide study aims to characterize dementia drug utilization in a population > 65 years, during 2018-2020. METHODS: Different administrative healthcare databases were queried to collect both aggregate and individual data. RESULTS: ADD consumption remained stable throughout the study period (~ 9 DDD/1000 inhabitants per day). AChEI consumption was over 5 DDD/1000 inhabitants per day. Memantine consumption was nearly 4 DDD/1000 inhabitants per day, representing 40% of ADD consumption. The prevalence of use of memantine represented nearly half of ADD consumption, substantially unchanged over the 3 years. Comparing the AD prevalence with the prevalence of ADDs use, the gap becomes wider as age increases. In 2019, the proportion of private purchases of ADDs was 38%, mostly represented by donepezil and rivastigmine. In 2020, memantine was the only ADD with an increase in consumption (Δ% 19-20, 1.3%). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to investigate the ADD prescription pattern in Italy with a Public Health approach. In 2019, the proportion of ADD private purchases point out several issues concerning the reimbursability of ADDs. From a regulatory perspective, ADDs can be reimbursed by the National Health System only to patients diagnosed with AD; therefore, the off-label use of ADDs in patients with mild cognitive impairment may partially explain this phenomenon. The study extends knowledge on the use of ADDs, providing comparisons with studies from other countries that investigate the prescription pattern of ADDs.

Prescription of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants in outpatient, universal care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: a nationwide, interrupted time-series approach.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the population's mental health. However, its impact on the consumption of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants remains to be evaluated. Hence, this article aims to assess the prescription trends of these drugs in Portugal, from January 2018 to March 2021, while critically examining whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on these prescription trends or not. METHODS: A nationwide interrupted time-series analysis of the prescription data of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants in outpatient setting of the public health sector was conducted. The data encompassed the defined daily dose per month, age range and sex and were analysed following a segmented regression approach. RESULTS: The pandemic preceded an immediate reduction in the prescription of anxiolytics, sedatives and hypnotics for children and adolescents. However, an increasing trend throughout the pandemic has been noted in the prescription of these drugs, especially among adults aged 65 years or above. A drop in antidepressant prescription was observed as an immediate effect of the pandemic among male and female adolescents and elderly women. From March 2020 to March 2021, a decreasing prescription trend has been noted among men. CONCLUSIONS: When analysing specific genders and age ranges, differences can be noted, in terms of both immediate impact and prescribing trends throughout 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on mental health and its association with the consumption trends of psychoactive drugs, and with the access to mental health treatments, should be further assessed.

Prescribing Trend of Renin-Angiotensin System Blocking Drugs during COVID-19 Pandemic: a Retrospective Cohort Study

It is known from a recent study that SARS-COV2 (COVID 19) virus had a high affinity for an-giotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which increased human-to-human transmission. Users of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) have higher ACE2 receptor expression, raising concerns about ACEI safety in COVID19 patients and whether their use predisposes to the disease. The aim of this study was to test the pattern of prescriptions for these drugs in the United Kingdom. This retrospective cohort study observed renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocking drug prescribing patterns in the United Kingdom. From April 2018 to December 2021, primary care prescribing data for RAS blocking drugs were collected in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Before April 2020, the rate of RAS blocking drugs prescribing was similar to the rate after April 2020 in England (median difference = 0.651, p value = 0.607) and Wales (median difference = 6.508, p value = 0.591). However, after April 2020, the prescribing rate in Northern Ireland was significantly lower (median difference = 36.136, p value = 0.002). Except for Northern Ireland, there was no difference in the use of renin-angiotensin system blocking drugs following the April 2020 study. Other studies using patient-level data should be conducted to investigate why Northern Ireland differs from the rest of the UK.

Anti-Inflammatory Therapy of Infections

Anti-inflammatory treatment of infections is challenging due to the heterogeneity of etiologic agents and complex immune interactions. Nevertheless, anti-inflammatory medications are commonly used in infections to reduce unpleasant symptoms and to modify host response. They may play a fundamental role in managing infection with over-inflammation by decreasing inflammatory organ damage, e.g., COVID-19. However, by its inherent inhibition of immune functions, they might also contribute to the development of serious bacterial infections. Moreover, reducing a patient's symptoms and signs may provide a false sense of security and delay diagnosing threatening infections. © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Pharmacoepidemiology-The Unknown Aspect of a Well-known Scientific Field

Introduction: Pharmacoepidemiology is defined as "the science that investigates the use and action of drugs on a large population scale” according to the World Health Organization. The aim of this review is to highlight the important role of pharmacoepidemiology and its research standing in Greece. Methodology: For this literature review, articles and relative information was extracted using the academic search engines and databases Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Science Direct. The review includes literature content from 1972 to 2021 and the keywords that were used for the literature search are "Pharmacoepidemiology”, "clinical research”, "clinical studies”, and "Pharmacovigilance”. Results-Discussion: Fundamental aims of Pharmacoepidemiology are: a) the enhancement of clinical research with the collection and analysis of Real-World Data, b) the detection of potential side effects of pharmaceutical products and c) the study/investigation of new therapeutic actions of pharmaceutical products for their beneficial use beyond their main known action. Additional reasons that make it crucial to conduct pharmacoepidemiologic studies nowadays are related to regulatory, legal, marketing, and clinical research evolvement factors. The main tools of Pharmacoepidemiology are: (i) advanced epidemiological methods which are applied to clinical research data and (ii) databases that have been developed significantly in recent years due to the progress of computer science and big data analytics. Some of the main resources of real-world data used in pharmacoepidemiologic science are drug prescription-cost related data, health insurance databases, and government related resources. The types of the studies that are used to conduct a pharmacoepidemiologic research are: i) descriptive studies (reports/case series and ecological or cross-sectional studies) aiming to enhance drug safety and pharmaceutical risk assessment and ii) analytical studies (case control and cohort studies) aiming to highlight the cause-effect relationships and detect risk-disease factors. However, despite the excellent design of a pharmacoepidemiologic research study, there are limitations related to the quality of data (primary/secondary) obtained and analyzed but also the population group size studied. There are also further limitations such as bias and recall bias, confounding factors, lack of organized valid large databases for research purposes that may pose an important burden to the proper design of a study. Finally, the reliability of a pharmacoepidemiologic study is very crucial based on its statistical power as defined by the confidence intervals and the large and well-defined/represented population sample. It is worth mentioning that the contribution of pharmacoepidemiology was highlighted significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic as a key pharmacovigilance tool that has identified and recorded serious and rare side effects of the new, innovative vaccines against the coronavirus disease. Conclusion: Pharmacoepidemiology studies are truly valuable since they can also act as a complementary assessment tool to the formation and updates of clinical guidelines. In Greece, the scientific field of pharmacoepidemiology is still in very early foundation stage, although there are groups of Greek scientists-researchers in recent decades that they have been trying through their work to develop and evolve this fascinating scientific field. © 2023, Zita Medical Managent. All rights reserved.

Trends and Characteristics of Blood Pressure Prescription Fills Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare in the United States and raised concerns about certain antihypertensives, and may have impacted both prescribing practices and access to blood pressure (BP) medications. METHODS: We assessed trends in BP prescription fills before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, using cross-sectional data for BP fills and tablets in the IQVIA (IMS Health) National Prescription Audit® database. Drugs filled via retail (92% coverage), mail-order (78% coverage), and long-term care (72% coverage) channels from January 2018 through December 2020 were included. Data were projected nationally and by state. RESULTS: Between 2.9 and 3.4 billion BP tablets were dispensed monthly until February 2020, increasing sharply to 3.8 billion in March 2020 and declining to 3.5 billion in April, then increasing at 3-month intervals until December 2020. The number of tablets per fill increased slightly over time, with the largest increase (from 66.7 to 68.6) during February-March, 2020. Tablets were dispensed through retail channels (99.7 billion), mail-order (14.7 billion), and long-term care (5.3 billion). Rates of patients initiating new medications decreased during 2020 compared to prior years. Fills did not vary significantly by drug class. CONCLUSIONS: A sharp increase in BP fills occurred with COVID-19 emergence, suggesting patients may have secured medications in preparation for potential access limitations. A decrease in new fills, indicating decreased initiation and/or modification of treatment regimens, suggests need for efforts to re-engage patients in the healthcare system and provide alternative ways to obtain medication refills and adjustments.

Chronic pain and continuity of analgesic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain can trigger both physical and mental health complications. During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with chronic diseases have had reduced access to some medications. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacological management of patients with chronic pain and its continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective longitudinal study of the continuity of analgesic use in patients with chronic pain between September 1, 2019 and February 28, 2021 based on a drug dispensing database. Survival analysis was performed until the discontinuation of chronic analgesics. RESULTS: A total of 12,701 patients who were being treated for chronic pain were identified. Their median age was 70.3 years, and 74.4% were women. The pain of rheumatological origin was the most frequent etiology (46.1%); the most used medications were nonopioid analgesics (78.9%), pain modulators (24.8%) and opioid analgesics (23.3%). A total of 76.1% of the patients experienced interruptions in their management during the study period. The median time to the first interruption of treatment was 5.0 months (95% CI: 4.8-5.2). Those who were treated for oncological pain experienced a greater number of interruptions in their management. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacological management of patients with chronic pain is heterogeneous, and this real-world study showed that a high proportion of patients experienced an interruption of pain management during the 12 months following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bias in observational studies on the effectiveness of in hospital use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During the first waves of the coronavirus pandemic, evidence on potential effective treatments was urgently needed. Results from observational studies on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were conflicting, potentially due to biases. We aimed to assess the quality of observational studies on HCQ and its relation to effect sizes. METHODS: PubMed was searched on 15 March 2021 for observational studies on the effectiveness of in-hospital use of HCQ in COVID-19 patients, published between 01/01/2020 and 01/03/2021 on. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Association between study quality and study characteristics (journal ranking, publication date, and time between submission and publication) and differences between effects sizes found in observational studies compared to those found in RCTs, were assessed using Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 33 (55%) included observational studies were scored as critical risk of bias, eleven (33%) as serious risk and only four (12%) as moderate risk of bias. Biases were most often scored as critical in the domains related to selection of participants (n = 13, 39%) and bias due to confounding (n = 8, 24%). There were no significant associations found between the study quality and the characteristics nor between the study quality and the effect estimates. DISCUSSION: Overall, the quality of observational HCQ studies was heterogeneous. Synthesis of evidence of effectiveness of HCQ in COVID-19 should focus on RCTs and carefully consider the added value and quality of observational evidence.

COVID-19 related medicine utilization study in pregnancy - the COVI-PREG cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe the use of COVID-19 related medicines during pregnancy and their evolution between the early/late periods of the pandemic. METHODS: Pregnant women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from March 2020, to July 2021, were included using the COVI-PREG registry. Exposure to the following COVID-19 related medicine were recorded: antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, anti-interleukin-6 and immunoglobulins. We described the prevalence of medicines used, by trimester of pregnancy, maternal COVID-19 severity level and early/late period of the pandemic (before and after July 1 2020). FINDINGS: We included 1,964 pregnant patients, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 10.4% (205/1964) received at least one COVID-19 related medicine including antibiotics (8.6%; 169/1694), corticosteroids (3.2%; 62/1964), antivirals (2.0%; 39/1964), hydroxychloroquine (1.4%; 27/1964), and anti-interleukin-6 (0.3%; 5/1964). The use of at least one COVID-19 related medicine was 3.1% (12/381) in asymptomatic, 4.2% (52/1233) in outpatients, 19.7% (46/233) in inpatients without oxygen, 72.1% (44/61) in requiring standard oxygen, 95.7% (22/23) in requiring high flow oxygen, 96.2% (25/26) in intubated and 57.1% (4/7) among patients who died. The proportion who received medicines to treat COVID-19 was higher before than after July 2020 (16.7% vs. 7.7%). Antibiotics, antivirals, and hydroxychloroquine had lower rates of use lately. INTERPRETATION: Medicine use in pregnancy was increasing with disease severity. The trend toward increased corticosteroids use seems to be aligned with changing guidelines. Evidence is still needed regarding the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 related medicines in pregnancy. FUNDING: Research funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.

Pharmacoepidemiological Analysis of Oral Contraceptive Use in Adolescents in a German Longitudinal Cohort Study.

To assess the use of oral contraceptives (OC) in adolescents, using data from a longitudinal, population-based pediatric cohort study (LIFE Child). We also investigated associations between OC use and socioeconomic status (SES), and associations between OC use and potential adverse drug reactions such as effects on blood pressure. We included 609 female participants of the LIFE Child cohort, aged ≥13 to <21 years, who visited the study center between 2012 and 2019. Data collection compromised drug use in the past 14 days, SES, and anthropometric data such as blood pressure. An analysis of covariance was used to detect potential associations between participants' blood pressure and OC. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios (aOR) adjusted for age and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The prevalence of OC use was 25.8%. OC intake was less common in participants with a high SES (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15, 0.62). The mean age at OC initiation did not change between 2012 and 2019. We observed an increased use of second-generation OC (2013: 17.9%, 2019: 48.5%; p = 0.013) and a decreased use of fourth-generation OC (2013: 71.8%, 2019: 45.5%; p = 0.027). We found a higher systolic (mean: 111.74 mmHg, p < 0.001) and diastolic (69.15 mmHg, p = 0.004) blood pressure in OC users compared to non-users (systolic: 108.60 mmHg; diastolic: 67.24 mmHg). Every fourth adolescent took an OC. The share of second-generation OC increased during the study period. OC intake was associated with low SES. OC users had a slightly higher blood pressure than non-users.

Evidence-based prescription of corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients: A comparison between general medicine and other specialty in Japan.

Background: The difference of evidence-based prescription for COVID-19 patients between general medicine and other specialty in Japan is unclear. Methods: A retrospective observational study using a hospital-based administrative database was conducted for the differences between departments for prescriptions of glucocorticoids in COVID-19 patients. Results: Of 65,156 patients, 23,348 met indication for glucocorticoids. General medicine physicians in Japan were more likely to prescribe corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients than other departments after its evidence was published (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32; p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.56). Conclusions: General medicine physicians were more likely to practice evidence-based care for COVID-19 patients.

Use of psychotropic drugs in the elderly in France: Are we condemned to remain at high tide?

Psychotropics are widely used drugs, especially in the elderly, especially in France. This, and the risks associated to their use, logically led to concerns that resulted in numerous studies, reports, and regulatory actions intending to limit this use. This review objective was to provide an overview of psychotropic use in elderly subjects in France for antipsychotics, antidepressants, and benzodiazepines and related drugs. The narrative review performed is structured in two parts. The first reminds the initial steps of psychotropic use monitoring in the general French population. The second provides information on psychotropic use in elderly in France using the latest open data released by the French Health Insurance system and processed using the dedicated DrugSurv tool developed within the DRUGS-SAFE® and DRUGS-SAFE® programs. This was completed examining the most recent studies regarding psychotropic use in elderly in France, whether they consisted in publications or reports. At least before the COVID-19 epidemic, decreases in psychotropic prevalence of use among the elderly in France could be observed, mostly for antipsychotics or benzodiazepines (e.g. antipsychotics, 2006-2013: 10.3% decrease and benzodiazepines 2012-2020: decrease from 30.6% to 24.7% in subjects aged ≥65). Psychotropic prevalence of use remained however very high overall (e.g. antidepressants, 2013: 13% in subjects aged 65-74 and 18% in aged ≥65), exceeding that of most other countries, with a significant proportion of inappropriate use (e.g. in 30% of benzodiazepine users, all ages) carrying a clearly identified risks for uncertain benefit. Initiatives have been multiplied at the national level to reduce psychotropic overuse in the elderly. The reported prevalences demonstrate their effectiveness is obviously insufficient. This limited effectiveness is not specific to psychotropics and might reside in a failure to create strong adherence to messages and recommendations. Other levels should be considered, especially regional, for interventions coupled with pharmacoepidemiologic monitoring allowing impact assessment.

Data quality considerations for evaluating COVID-19 treatments using real world data: learnings from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

BACKGROUND: Multi-institution electronic health records (EHR) are a rich source of real world data (RWD) for generating real world evidence (RWE) regarding the utilization, benefits and harms of medical interventions. They provide access to clinical data from large pooled patient populations in addition to laboratory measurements unavailable in insurance claims-based data. However, secondary use of these data for research requires specialized knowledge and careful evaluation of data quality and completeness. We discuss data quality assessments undertaken during the conduct of prep-to-research, focusing on the investigation of treatment safety and effectiveness. METHODS: Using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) enclave, we defined a patient population using criteria typical in non-interventional inpatient drug effectiveness studies. We present the challenges encountered when constructing this dataset, beginning with an examination of data quality across data partners. We then discuss the methods and best practices used to operationalize several important study elements: exposure to treatment, baseline health comorbidities, and key outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We share our experiences and lessons learned when working with heterogeneous EHR data from over 65 healthcare institutions and 4 common data models. We discuss six key areas of data variability and quality. (1) The specific EHR data elements captured from a site can vary depending on source data model and practice. (2) Data missingness remains a significant issue. (3) Drug exposures can be recorded at different levels and may not contain route of administration or dosage information. (4) Reconstruction of continuous drug exposure intervals may not always be possible. (5) EHR discontinuity is a major concern for capturing history of prior treatment and comorbidities. Lastly, (6) access to EHR data alone limits the potential outcomes which can be used in studies. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of large scale centralized multi-site EHR databases such as N3C enables a wide range of research aimed at better understanding treatments and health impacts of many conditions including COVID-19. As with all observational research, it is important that research teams engage with appropriate domain experts to understand the data in order to define research questions that are both clinically important and feasible to address using these real world data.