Assessing the prevalence of Beers medication utilization in the Medicare Part D population in 2020.

BACKGROUND: Medication utilization has been increasing in the U.S. year-over-year for several decades. As older adults take more medications, there is a higher risk of them being exposed to drug-drug or drug-disease interactions. The American Geriatrics Society in 2019 updated their Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) Use in Older Adults. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of utilization of medications included in the 2019 Beers Criteria. METHODS: An analysis was conducted using the Medicare Part D Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use File for calendar-year 2020. Medications identified in the 2019 Beers Criteria were applied to the analysis. Two categories of medications were assessed: (1) "Avoid" and (2) "Use With Caution." RESULTS: In 2020, 56 million prescriptions were dispensed to Medicare patients 65 years and older that are recommended to be avoided without exception (4.7% of all prescriptions) totaling $957 million in medication costs. The most utilized medication classes in this category were benzodiazepines (25,949,994 prescriptions), "Z-drugs" (6,204,909 prescriptions), long-acting sulfonylureas (5,306,577 prescriptions), 1st-generation antihistamines (5,049,289 prescriptions), and tricyclic antidepressants (4,190,062 prescriptions). Additionally, 135 million prescriptions were dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older for medications which the Beers Criteria states to use caution (11.3% of all prescriptions) exceeding $2.85 billion in medication costs. The most utilized medications for this category were diuretics (74,599,126 prescriptions), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (30,033,121 prescriptions), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (11,858,968 prescriptions), tramadol (11,450,878 prescriptions), and mirtazapine (5,737,304 prescriptions). CONCLUSION: Even with the existence of the AGS Beers Criteria for PIM Use in Older Adults and its continued updated versions, 16% of medications dispensed to Medicare Part D were potentially inappropriate. Future studies are needed to assess if this has led to worsened outcomes among older adults who utilized these PIM.

Assessing the Trends of Tramadol Utilization in the Medicare Part D Population in Rhode Island.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the trends in tramadol dispensing among Medicare Part D patients in Rhode Island. METHODS: An analysis was conducted of the Medicare Part D Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use File for the years 2013-2021. Chi squared tests were conducted to assess statistical significance of annual changes in proportions. RESULTS: Following tramadol becoming a controlled substance in 2014, the number of dispensed tramadol prescriptions and patients with a tramadol prescription decreased every subsequent year through 2021 (prescriptions: 42,157 to 33,026; patients: 12,654 to 9,653). The percentage of opioid prescriptions that were tramadol increased from 16.32% in 2013 to 21.19% in 2020. CONCLUSION: Tramadol utilization has been decreasing among the Medicare Part D population in Rhode Island while the percentage of opioid dispensings that were tramadol have been increasing. Future studies are needed to assess whether patients utilizing tramadol are at a higher risk for adverse outcomes.

Benzodiazepine Dose Intensity among Patients Concurrently Prescribed Buprenorphine in Rhode Island.

Background: The concomitant use of buprenorphine and benzodiazepines has been linked to patient fatalities, with greater risk occurring with higher doses of benzodiazepines. We assessed benzodiazepine dose intensity among patients who were concurrently prescribed buprenorphine, as compared with patients prescribed benzodiazepines who were not receiving buprenorphine. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult patients who received at least a 30-day supply of benzodiazepines during 2018, using data from the Rhode Island (RI) Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Mean daily diazepam milligram equivalents (DME) were calculated overall and according to patient sex, age group, payment type, and RI county. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the odds of higher-dose benzodiazepine utilization among patients with concurrent use of buprenorphine, as compared with patients not prescribed buprenorphine, adjusting for patient demographics. Results: Compared to patients prescribed benzodiazepines who were not receiving buprenorphine, those with concurrent buprenorphine utilization had a significantly higher mean DME/day (19.22, 95% CI: 18.70-19.74; vs 10.94, 95% CI: 10.93-10.95; p < 0.001). Patients who were prescribed benzodiazepines with concurrent utilization of buprenorphine also had a comparatively higher odds of a DME/day ≥15 (aOR: 2.86, 95% CI: 2.63-3.10), ≥20 DME/day (aOR: 2.98, 95% CI: 2.75-3.24), and ≥25 DME/day (aOR: 2.99, 95% CI: 2.65-3.18). Conclusion: Compared to patients prescribed benzodiazepines for at least 30 days who were not receiving buprenorphine, patients concurrently utilizing benzodiazepines and buprenorphine had more than twice the odds of higher dose benzodiazepine utilization. Future studies are needed to assess the relationship between benzodiazepine dose intensity, overdose outcomes, and treatment retention among patients receiving buprenorphine.

Tramadol utilization among patients with higher risk of adverse drug events: A claims analysis of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prescribing of tramadol among patients with contraindications and higher risks of adverse events in a large population of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional analysis evaluating tramadol utilization in patients with higher risk of adverse outcomes. SETTING: This study utilized 2016-2017 data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with at least one tramadol prescription without a cancer or sickle cell diagnosis during the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We first determined if tramadol was prescribed among patients with contraindications or risk factors for adverse outcomes. We then determined if patient demographic or clinical factors were associated with the use of tramadol in these higher-risk scenarios using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among patients with at least one prescription for tramadol, 19.66 percent (99 percent CI: 19.57-19.75) concurrently received an interacting cytochrome P450 isoenzyme medication, 19.24 percent (99 percent CI: 19.15-19.33) concurrently received a serotonergic medication, and 7.93 percent (99 percent CI: 7.88-8.00) concurrently received a benzodiazepine. Additionally, 1.59 percent (99 percent CI: 1.56-1.61) of patients who received tramadol also had a seizure disorder, while 0.55 percent (99 percent CI: 0.53-0.56) of patients were under the age of 18. Overall, nearly one in three patients (31.17 percent) received tramadol in the presence of at least one of these risks (99 percent CI: 31.06-31.27). CONCLUSION: Almost one in three patients prescribed tramadol had a clinically significant drug interaction or contraindication for use, suggesting that prescribers often disregard these concerns. Real-world studies are needed to better understand the likelihood of harms associated with the use of tramadol in these contexts.

Impact of star ratings on Medicare health plan enrollment: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare star ratings program was developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2007 as an approach to evaluate health plan performance and quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and narratively describe studies that attempted to quantitatively assess the impact that Medicare star ratings have on health plan enrollment. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and Google to identify articles that quantitatively assessed the impact of Medicare star ratings on health plan enrollment. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies that conducted quantitative analyses to estimate the potential impact. Exclusion criteria consisted of qualitative studies and studies that did not directly assess plan enrollment. RESULTS: This SLR identified 10 studies that sought to measure the impact of Medicare star ratings on plan enrollment. Nine of the studies found that plan enrollment increased in accordance with increases in star ratings or that plan disenrollment increased with decreases in star ratings. One study conducted of data before the implementation of the Medicare quality bonus payment found contradictory results from one year to the next, whereas all the studies that assessed data after implementation found increases in enrollment in accordance to increases in star ratings or increases in disenrollment for decreases in star ratings. One concerning finding from some of the articles included in the SLR is that increases in star ratings had less of an impact on enrollment in higher-rated plans for ethnic and racial minorities and older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in Medicare star ratings led to statistically significant increases in health plan enrollment and decreases in health plan disenrollment. Future studies are needed to assess whether this increase has a causal association or is caused by additional factors outside of or in addition to increases in overall star rating.

The effect of antiretroviral therapy with high central nervous system penetration on HIV-related cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chronic complications are a significant concern for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) infection. HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are prevalent in PLWHA. Yet, the efficacy of medications that penetrate the central nervous system (CNS) at preventing or slowing the progression of HAND remains largely unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether high CNS penetration effectiveness (CPE) regimens improve neurocognitive test scores in PLWHA on combined antiretroviral therapy (cART). Primary literature evaluating cognitive outcomes based on CPE score of cART regimens in PLWHA was assembled from PubMed/Medline and EMBASE. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies with at least 12 weeks of follow-up were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the standardized mean difference. Eight trials including a total of 3,303 patients with 13,103 person-years of follow-up were included in the systematic review. Four trials (n = 366 patients) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, HIV regimens with a high CPE score did not affect NPZ-4 or GDS scores (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.10, 95% CI -0.19, 0.38; I2 = 26%). Future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to prospectively evaluate the relationship between CPE and progression of HAND.

Scenario analysis when conducting budget impact analyses for rare diseases.

Pharmacoeconomic analyses are an important and useful guide for understanding a pharmacotherapeutic intervention's financial impact for relevant stakeholders. One type of pharmacoeconomic analysis that assesses a pharmacotherapeutic intervention's short-term financial implications is a budget impact analysis. Although methodology guidelines for budget impact analyses in the United States currently exist, not much guidance is available for analyses that are being conducted of rare or ultrarare disease states. In this article, we propose conducting a scenario analysis for pharmacotherapeutic interventions to treat rare diseases by varying health plan sizes to indicate what the potential plan impact would be if 1 member in said health plan received treatment. We then walk through an illustrative example and discuss the rationale for it.

Five Year Analysis Assessing the Trend in Prescribing and Expenditures of Oral Oncolytics for Medicare Part D: 2013-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Oral oncolytics are becoming a mainstay in oncology, representing first-line therapies for numerous different malignancies. In addition, the cost of oncology drugs has increased dramatically in recent years. Given the increasing number of oral oncolytics available, as well as the increase in medication costs in recent years, it is important to assess the trend in prescriptions and expenditures of these agents. METHODS: A descriptive retrospective analysis of the Medicare Part D Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use File (PUF) was conducted for the years 2013 through 2017. Outcomes of interest included total aggregate prescriptions per year, total aggregate expenditures per year, mean expenditure per prescription per year, and mean expenditure per standardized 30-day prescription per year. Chi-square tests were conducted to assess statistical significance of differences in proportions of prescriptions as well as expenditures between 2013 and 2017. RESULTS: The number of prescriptions for oral oncolytics dispensed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries increased from 7,017,902 in 2013 to 8,164,883 in 2017. Medicare Part D expenditures for oral oncolytics increased greater than 2.5-fold from $5,631,224,307 in 2013 to $14,422,681,331 in 2017 after adjusting for inflation. The mean expenditure per prescription for oral oncolytics increased from $802 in 2013 to $1,766 in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This study found oral oncolytic utilization has been increasing in recent years with a slight, but statistically significant increase in the proportion of oncolytics for all Medicare prescriptions from 2013 through 2017.

Application of a diazepam milligram equivalency algorithm to assess benzodiazepine dose intensity in Rhode Island in 2018.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are indicated for the treatment of many conditions, such as anxiety disorders, muscle spasms, alcohol withdrawal, agitation, movement disorders, and epilepsy, and are one of the most frequently prescribed medication classes. This class of medication has important safety considerations, including an increased risk of dependence and addiction, falls, and death from opioid overdose. Although benzodiazepine safety and prescribing encompasses a rich and important research area, there is a lack of pharmacoepidemiologic literature addressing benzodiazepine dosing intensity in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: To develop and apply a standardized benzodiazepine milligram equivalency conversion algorithm and assess the dose intensity of benzodiazepine use in Rhode Island (RI) in 2018. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the most commonly used benzodiazepine equivalency values. We then conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2018 data from the RI Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) to calculate the mean daily diazepam milligram equivalency (DME) based on a patient's most recent dispensing. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the association between higher benzodiazepine doses (≥ 15 DME/day) and recipient characteristics, including concurrent use of opioids or stimulants. RESULTS: We identified 143,026 patients who received at least 1 prescription for a benzodiazepine in RI in 2018. The mean (SD) daily DME was 10.60 (9.05), and 26.2% of individuals had a mean DME per day of at least 15. Approximately 14% (n = 20,168) of patients prescribed a benzodiazepine had concurrent use with a prescription opioid, and 6.7% (n = 9,547) had concurrent use with a prescription stimulant. Females had a 28% lower adjusted odds of receiving a benzodiazepine dose of at least 15 DME per day compared with males (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.70-0.73). The adjusted odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription of at least 15 DME per day was lower among the younger (aged 18-34 years) and older age groups (aged 65 years and older) compared with patients aged 35-64 years. Compared with commercial insurance, all other forms of payment had significantly higher adjusted odds of a daily benzodiazepine dose of at least 15 DME per day. The adjusted odds receiving a daily DME of at least 15 was 67% higher among those who also received a concurrent pharmacy dispensing for an opioid and 84% higher among those who also received a concurrent dispensing for a stimulant drug (aOR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.61-1.72; aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.76-1.93, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals aged 35-64 years with Medicaid insurance and those aged under 65 years with Medicare were more likely to be prescribed a benzodiazepine of at least 15 DME per day. Higher benzodiazepine DMEs were also dispensed to patients who concurrently used prescription opioids or stimulants who may be at increased risk of medication-related harm. We advocate for routine measurement of benzodiazepine dose intensity as a risk reduction strategy. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The content and results of this study are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Rhode Island Department of Health. Kogut is partially supported by Institutional Development Award Numbers U54GM115677 and P20GM125507 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, which funds Advance Clinical and Translational Research (Advance-CTR) and the RI Lifespan Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) on Opioids and Overdose, respectively. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Contents of this study were presented as a poster presentation at AMCP 2019 Nexus; October 29-November 1, 2019; National Harbor, MD.

A Review of Pharmacologic Management in the Treatment of Mesothelioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Mesothelioma is a rare and severe form of cancer that is associated with asbestos exposure. Approximately 2500 Americans die annually from this condition with a median survival of 1 year. The latency period of this disease ranges anywhere from 20 to 70 years, with shorter latency periods associated with a higher exposure intensity to asbestos. Therefore, cases of mesothelioma are expected in the coming decades. This highlights the need for clinicians to understand the pharmacologic regimens available for treating this rare, yet serious malignancy. With multiple treatment regimens available in the treatment of this condition, clinicians should take an evidence-based approach and consider the totality of evidence and safety information while considering the best patient-centered approach for treatment. This article provides a review of current pharmacologic treatment options available for mesothelioma and goes into detail about the recommended medication regimens and dosages and the available evidence of efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety and estimates the annual cost of treatment for these medications on the U.S. healthcare system per patient. A brief introduction is provided for several promising agents currently under investigation for mesothelioma as well.

Differences in safety profiles of newly approved medications for multiple myeloma in real-world settings versus randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Four new agents (elotuzumab, ixazomib, panobinostat, and daratumumab) were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015 for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Our objective was to compare the safety profiles of these new medications in real-world settings and their randomized controlled trial(s). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analysis was conducted of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for each drug consisting of the quarter that the drug received its FDA approval and the eight subsequent quarters. Reporting odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were then calculated for each drug for each of the 10 most frequent adverse drug reactions. The randomized controlled trials that led to initial FDA approval for these medications were subsequently reviewed to assess the 10 most frequently reported adverse drug reactions in these trials. RESULTS: There were only two adverse drug reactions in the top 10 of both FAERS and its randomized controlled trials for elotuzumab (anaemia, diarrhoea) and for daratumumab (cough, back pain), five for ixazomib (diarrhoea, constipation, fatigue, nausea, peripheral neuropathy), and four panobinostat (diarrhoea, fatigue, nausea, constipation). Ixazomib had two adverse drug reactions with a significant reporting odds ratios greater than a 10-fold increased risk (plasma cell myeloma, peripheral neuropathy); elotuzumab had three adverse drug reactions (infusion site reaction, malignant neoplasm progression, deep vein thrombosis); daratumumab had three adverse drug reactions (infusion site reaction, bronchospasm, chills), while panobinostat had four (malignant neoplasm progression, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, increased blood creatinine). CONCLUSION: This analysis helps to highlight the importance of conducting postmarketing pharmacovigilance studies to better understand the potential adverse reactions of these medications.

Concurrent Utilization of Prescription Opioids and Non-opioid Controlled Substances: Rhode Island Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of concurrent prescription opioid and non-opioid controlled substance use in Rhode Island (RI). METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional observational study using data from the RI Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on controlled substance prescriptions dispensed in 2018. We estimated the prevalence of concurrent use of other prescribed controlled substances among adults who received at least one opioid prescription. RESULTS: In 2018, 142,692 RI adult residents received at least one opioid prescription, of whom 25.1% (99% confidence interval [CI]: 24.8-25.4) were concurrently prescribed at least one other controlled substance, including benzodiazepines (17.0%, 99% CI: 16.8-17.3), medications for insomnia (4.0%, 99% CI: 3.9-4.2), and stimulants (3.8%, 99% CI: 3.6-3.9). CONCLUSION: The concurrent use of prescription opioids and other prescribed controlled substances is common. Our findings suggest an urgent need to implement focused initiatives to address controlled substance polypharmacy to reduce the risk of overdose.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Real-world evidence of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in the treatment of ovarian cancer: A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment landscape for ovarian cancer has shifted in recent years with the approval of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in 2014. Most patients with ovarian cancer have advanced disease at diagnosis. Understanding how treatments for advanced disease work in real-world settings must be assessed to provide care for these patients. Therefore, the objective of this study was to locate and assess real-world studies measuring the safety and effectiveness of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors and analyze the results.Data sources: A targeted systematic literature review was conducted in April 2020 of PubMed/Medline. Inclusion criteria consisted of observational studies using real-world data of olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib as an intervention in the treatment of ovarian cancer. In addition, studies needed to assess either clinical effectiveness or safety. Once studies were identified, we aimed to narratively describe the studies' patient population, intervention effectiveness, and/or safety.Data summary: Our systematic review identified six studies assessing the real-world effectiveness and/or safety of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, with five assessing olaparib, one assessing poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors as a composite, and none assessing either niraparib or rucaparib. The median progression free survival in the real-world trials for olaparib ranged from 12.7 to 15.6 months. The median overall survival in the real-world trials for olaparib ranged from 30.9 to 35.4 months. Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events for olaparib ranged from 4.4% to 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The identified studies showed slightly higher, but comparable results for median progression free survival, median overall survival, and discontinuation due to adverse events compared to the respective randomized controlled trials.

Clozapine and hematologic adverse reactions: Impact of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.

INTRODUCTION: In October 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted an update to the mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program for clozapine to improve safety monitoring of hematologic events. However, the impact of the clozapine REMS program on reporting of hematologic adverse events has not been quantified. METHODS: We assessed adverse event reports for agranulocytosis, granulocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for a 1-year time period before (October 2014 to September 2015, pre-REMS) and after (October 2015 to September 2016, post-REMS) the implementation of the clozapine REMS program. The AERSMine platform was used to capture historical effect estimates (October 2004 to September 2014). Reporting odds ratios (ROR), proportional reporting ratios (PRR), and corresponding Taylor series 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for hematologic events with clozapine compared with all other medications using OpenEpi. RESULTS: Reporting rates for agranulocytosis, granulocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia with clozapine all increased from the pre-REMS to post-REMS time frames, ranging from a 2-fold increase with leukopenia to a 40-fold increase with neutropenia; the composite measure of all hematologic reports had a 12-fold increase. During the post-REMS time frame, the ROR increased by 1691% (111.4, 95% CI 100.6-123.4) compared with the pre-REMS time frame (7.1, 95% CI 5.2-9.6), and the PRR increased by 1280% (83.1, 95% CI 76.8-90.0 vs 6.9, 95% CI 5.1-9.4) for the composite outcome. DISCUSSION: We observed significant increases in reports of hematologic adverse events with clozapine after the introduction of the clozapine REMS program. Future research should explore the impact of the less stringent exclusionary and discontinuation criteria on utilization (eg, expanded access) and clinical outcomes (eg, treatment effectiveness and adverse events).

The art and science of drug titration.

A "one-size-fits-all" approach has been the standard for drug dosing, in particular for agents with a wide therapeutic index. The scientific principles of drug titration, most commonly used for medications with a narrow therapeutic index, are to give the patient adequate and effective treatment, at the lowest dose possible, with the aim of minimizing unnecessary medication use and side effects. The art of drug titration involves the interplay of scientific drug titration principles with the clinical expertise of the healthcare provider, and an individualized, patient-centered partnership between the provider and the patient to review the delicate balance of perceived benefits and risks from both perspectives. Drug titration may occur as up-, down-, or cross-titration depending on whether the goal is to reach or maintain a therapeutic outcome, decrease the risk of adverse effects, or prevent withdrawal/discontinuation syndromes or recurrence of disease. Drug titration introduces additional complexities surrounding the conduct of clinical trials and real-world studies, confounding our understanding of the true effect of medications. In clinical practice, wide variations in titration schedules may exist due to a lack of evidence and consensus on titration approaches that achieve an optimal benefit-harm profile. Further, drug titration may be challenging for patients to follow, resulting in suboptimal adherence and may require increased healthcare-related visits and coordination of care amongst providers. Despite the challenges associated with drug titration, it is a personalized approach to drug dosing that blends science with art, and with supportive real-world outcomes-based evidence, can be effective for optimizing pharmacotherapeutic outcomes and improving drug safety.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis with antiepileptic drugs: An analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.

OBJECTIVE: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are rare and potentially fatal adverse skin reactions that are most commonly triggered by certain medications. One class of medications that has been highly associated with SJS/TEN reactions is antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). We sought to quantify the risk of SJS/TEN associated with AEDs as a class, as well as individual AEDs, in the United States. METHODS: An analysis was performed of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from July 2014 through December 2017. Rates of SJS/TEN were calculated for each AED compared with all other non-AEDs. Reporting odds ratios (RORs), proportional reporting ratios (PRRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using OpenEpi. RESULTS: With 198 reports, AEDs had more reports of SJS/TEN than any other medication class. AEDs as a class had an ROR of 8.7 (95% CI 7.5-10.2) and a PRR of 8.7 (95% CI 7.5-10.2) compared with all other non-AEDs. The AEDs with the highest risk estimates were zonisamide (ROR 70.2, 95% CI 33.1-148.7; PRR 68.7, 95% CI 32.9-143.5), rufinamide (ROR 60.0, 95% CI 8.3-433.5; PRR 58.9, 95% CI 8.4-411.5), clorazepate (ROR 56.0, 95% CI 7.8-404.1; PRR 55.1, 95% CI 7.8-385.0), lamotrigine (ROR 53.0, 95% CI 43.2-64.9; PRR 52.2, 95% CI 42.7-63.7), phenytoin (ROR 26.3, 95% CI 15.5-44.7; PRR 26.1, 95% CI 15.4-44.2), and carbamazepine (ROR 24.5, 95% CI 16.0-37.5; PRR 24.3, 95% CI 16.0-37.1). SIGNIFICANCE: Although AEDs as a class were associated with 9 times the risk of SJS/TEN compared with non-AEDs, there were 6 AEDs with risk estimates greater than 20. Increased awareness of this risk among both prescribers and patients, particularly variations in risk among different AEDs, along with education on early recognition of SJS/TEN signs/symptoms, may help mitigate the number and severity of these adverse events.