Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms. DESIGN: Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial. INTERVENTION: A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression. RESULTS: 5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)). CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.

A shifting terrain: Understanding the perspectives of walk-in physicians on their roles amid worsening primary care access in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. RESULTS: Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.

Examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on homecare services among individuals with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injuries.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive repeated-cross sectional retrospective longitudinal cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on homecare services in individuals with traumatic or non-traumatic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). SETTING: Health administrative database in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional study using linked health administrative databases from March 2015 to June 2022. Monthly homecare utilization was assessed in 3381 adults with SCI using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models. RESULTS: Compared to pre-pandemic levels, between March 2020 to June 2022, the traumatic group experienced a decrease in personal and/or homemaking services, as well as an increase in nursing visits from April 2020-March 2022 and June 2022. Case management increased at various times for the traumatic group, however therapies decreased in May 2020 only. The non-traumatic group experienced a decrease in personal and/or homemaking services in July 2020, as well as an increase in nursing visits from March 2020 to February 2021 and sporadically throughout 2020. Case management also increased at certain points for the non-traumatic group, but therapies decreased in April 2020, July 2020, and September 2021. CONCLUSION: The traumatic group had decreases in personal and/or homemaking services. Both groups had increases in nursing services, increases in case management, and minimal decreases in therapies at varying times during the pandemic. Investigation is warranted to understand the root cause of these changes, and if they resulted in adverse outcomes.

International time trends and differences in topical actinic keratosis therapy utilization.

Background: Actinic Keratoses (AK) are precancerous lesions that can lead to Squamous Cell Carcinoma. International differences in the utilization of topical medications to treat AK are not well described. Objectives: To describe international differences in topical AK medication utilization, including associations of countries' economic status with AK medication utilization. Methods: We used IQVIA MIDAS pharmaceutical sales data for 65 countries (42 high-income, 24 middle-income) from April 2011 to December 2021. We calculated each country's quarterly utilization of medications in grams per 1000 population. We used univariable linear regression to assess the association between country economic status and AK medication utilization. Results: High-income countries used 15.37 more grams per 1000 population of 5-fluorouracil (95% CI: 9.68, 21.05), 4.64 more grams per 1000 population of imiquimod (95% CI: 3.45, 5.83), and 0.32 more grams per 1000 population of ingenol mebutate (95% CI: 0.05, 0.60). Limitations: Missing medication utilization data for some countries. Conclusion: High-income countries use more topical AK therapies than middle-income countries.

Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. RESULTS: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices.

Alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists and the risk of hospitalization or death in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-1 receptor antagonists may interfere with IL-6 signaling and could therefore be a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs in mitigating the risk of clinical deterioration among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine the association between alpha-1 antagonist exposure and the 30-day risk of a hospital encounter or death in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario residents aged 35 years and older who were eligible for public drug coverage and who had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021. We matched each individual receiving an alpha-1 antagonist at the time of their positive test with two non-exposed individuals using propensity scores. Our outcome was a composite of a hospital admission, emergency department visit, or death, 1 to 30 days following the positive test. RESULTS: We matched 3289 alpha-1 antagonist exposed patients to 6189 unexposed patients. Overall, there was no difference in the 30-day risk of the primary outcome among patients exposed to alpha-1 antagonists at the time of their diagnosis relative to unexposed individuals (28.8% vs. 28.0%; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11). In a secondary analysis, individuals exposed to alpha-1 antagonists had a lower risk of death in the 30 days following a COVID diagnosis (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). CONCLUSION: Alpha-1 antagonists did not mitigate the 30-day risk of clinical deterioration in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Our findings do not support the general repurposing of alpha-1 antagonists as a treatment for such patients, although there may be subgroups of patients in whom further research is warranted.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2024.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2024 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2024 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2024 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2023, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 13.6% compared to 2022, for a total of $722.5 billion. Utilization (a 6.5% increase), new drugs (a 4.2% increase) and price (a 2.9% increase) drove this increase. Semaglutide was the top drug in 2023, followed by adalimumab and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.1 billion (a 1.1% decrease) and $135.7 billion (a 15.0% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, increased utilization drove growth, with a small impact from price and new products. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led the decrease in expenditures, with price and new drugs modestly contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2024. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2024, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 10.0% to 12.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate an 11.0% to 13.0% increase and a 0% to 2.0% increase, respectively, compared to 2023. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Opioid-related deaths between 2019 and 2021 across 9 Canadian provinces and territories.

BACKGROUND: The drug toxicity crisis continues to accelerate across Canada, with rapid increases in opioid-related harms following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to describe trends in the burden of opioid-related deaths across Canada throughout the pandemic, comparing these trends by province or territory, age, and sex. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of accidental opioid-related deaths between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2021, across 9 Canadian provinces and territories using aggregated national data. Our primary measure was the burden of premature opioid-related death, measured by potential years of life lost. Our secondary measure was the proportion of all deaths attributable to opioids; we used the Cochrane-Armitage test for trend to compare proportions. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2021, the annual number of opioid-related deaths increased from 3007 to 6222 and years of life lost increased from 126 115 to 256 336 (from 3.5 to 7.0 yr of life lost per 1000 population). In 2021, the highest number of years of life lost was among males (181 525 yr) and people aged 30-39 years (87 045 yr). In 2019, we found that 1.7% of all deaths among those younger than 85 years were related to opioids, rising to 3.2% in 2021. Significant increases in the proportion of deaths related to opioids were observed across all age groups (p < 0.001), representing 29.3% and 29.0% of deaths among people aged 20-29 and 30-39 years in 2021, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Across Canada, the burden of premature opioid-related deaths doubled between 2019 and 2021, representing more than one-quarter of deaths among younger adults. The disproportionate loss of life in this demographic group highlights the critical need for targeted prevention efforts.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Drug Shortages Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Drug shortages are a chronic and worsening issue that compromises patient safety. Despite the destabilizing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmaceutical production, it remains unclear whether issues affecting the drug supply chain were more likely to result in meaningful shortages during the pandemic. Objective: To estimate the proportion of supply chain issue reports associated with drug shortages overall and with the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database, comprising more than 85% of drug purchases by US pharmacies from wholesalers and manufacturers, from 2017 to 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Exposure: Presence of a supply chain issue report to the US Food and Drug Administration or the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (ASHP). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was drug shortage, defined as at least 33% decrease in units purchased within 6 months of a supply chain issue report. Random-effects logistic regression models compared the marginal odds of shortages for drugs with vs without reports. Interaction terms assessed heterogeneity prior to vs during the COVID-19 pandemic and by drug characteristics (formulation, age, essential medicine status, clinician- vs self-administered, sales volume, and number of manufacturers). Results: A total of 571 drugs exposed to 731 supply chain issue reports were matched to 7296 comparison medications with no reports. After adjusting for drug characteristics, 13.7% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.8%) of supply chain issue reports were associated with subsequent drug shortages vs 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6%-4.8%) of comparators (marginal odds ratio [mOR], 3.7 [95% CI, 2.6-5.1]). Shortages increased among both drugs with and without reports in February to April 2020 (34.2% of drugs with supply chain issue reports and 9.5% of comparison drugs; mOR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.1-11.6]), and then decreased after May 2020 (9.8% of drugs with reports and 3.6% of comparison drugs; mOR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.6-5.3]). Significant associations were identified by formulation (parenteral mOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.2] vs oral mOR, 5.4 [95% CI, 3.3-8.8]; P for interaction = .008), WHO essential medicine status (essential mOR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-5.2] vs nonessential mOR, 4.6 [95% CI, 3.2-6.7]; P = .02), and for brand-name vs generic status (brand-name mOR, 8.1 [95% CI, 4.0-16.0] vs generic mOR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.7-3.6]; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this national cross-sectional study, supply chain issues associated with drug shortages increased at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ongoing policy work is needed to protect US drug supplies from future shocks and to prioritize clinically valuable drugs at greatest shortage risk.

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. CONCLUSION: A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Trends in opioid toxicities among people with and without opioid use disorder and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Across Canada, the COVID-19 pandemic occurred amidst an ongoing drug toxicity crisis. Although elevated rates of substance-related harms have been observed nationally, it remains unknown if the pandemic state of emergency led to disproportionate increases in opioid toxicities among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) compared to those without. METHODS: We conducted a population-based repeated cross-sectional time series analysis of fatal and non-fatal opioid toxicities between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021, in Ontario, Canada. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to examine the impact of the pandemic on monthly rates of opioid toxicities per 100,000 Ontario residents stratified by people with and without OUD. RESULTS: We identified 80,296 opioid toxicities of which 53.5 % occurred among people with OUD. Among 52,052 unique individuals, 60.5 % were male and 46.2 % were 25-44 years old. Between January 2014 and December 2021, the rate of opioid toxicities increased from 2.6 to 10.5 per 100,000 (rate ratio [RR]=4.07). The magnitude of this increase differed among people with OUD (0.8 to 7.4 per 100,000; RR=9.35) and without OUD (1.8 to 3.1 per 100,000; RR=1.74). We observed a significant ramp increase in the overall rate of opioid toxicities following the declaration of the pandemic emergency in March 2020 (+0.19 per 100,000 monthly, 95 % CI: 0.029, 0.36, p = 0.021). In a stratified analysis, we found a similar ramp increase among people with OUD (+0.19 per 100,000 monthly, 95 % CI: 0.10, 0.28, p < 0.001); however, this was not observed among people without OUD (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of opioid toxicities accelerated across Ontario following the pandemic-related state of emergency, with the majority of this increase among people with OUD. The important differences observed among people with OUD compared with those without, highlights the critical need for improved access to harm reduction and treatment interventions among this population.

A multiprovincial retrospective analysis of the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA vaccination compared to the incidence after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Objective: To compare myocarditis/pericarditis risk after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination versus SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to assess if myocarditis/pericarditis risk varies by vaccine dosing interval. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we used linked databases in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia between January 26, 2020, and September 9, 2021. We included individuals aged 12 or above who received an mRNA vaccine as the second dose or were SARS-CoV-2-positive by RT-PCR. The outcome was hospitalization/emergency department visit for myocarditis/pericarditis within 21 days of exposure. We calculated age- and sex-stratified incidence ratios (IRs) of myocarditis/pericarditis following mRNA vaccination versus SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also calculated myocarditis/pericarditis incidence by vaccine type, homologous/heterologous schedule, and dosing interval. We pooled province-specific estimates using meta-analysis. Results: Following 18,860,817 mRNA vaccinations and 860,335 SARS-CoV-2 infections, we observed 686 and 160 myocarditis/pericarditis cases, respectively. Myocarditis/pericarditis incidence was lower after vaccination than infection (IR [BNT162b2/SARS-CoV-2], 0.14; 95%CI, 0.07-0.29; IR [mRNA-1273/SARS-CoV-2], 0.28; 95%CI, 0.20-0.39). Within the vaccinated cohort, myocarditis/pericarditis incidence was lower with longer dosing intervals; IR (56 or more days/15-30 days) was 0.28 (95%CI, 0.19-0.41) for BNT162b2 and 0.26 (95%CI, 0.18-0.38) for mRNA-1273. Conclusion: Myocarditis/pericarditis risk was lower after mRNA vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and with longer intervals between primary vaccine doses.

Effect of statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among older adults: a cautionary tale concerning target trials emulation.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence concerning the effect of statins in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among older adults is lacking. Using Quebec population-wide administrative data, we emulated a hypothetical randomized trial including older adults >65 years on April 1, 2013, with no CVD history and no statin use in the previous year. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included individuals who initiated statins and classified them as exposed if they were using statin at least 3 months after initiation and nonexposed otherwise. We followed them until March 31, 2018. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of coronary events (myocardial infarction, coronary bypass, and percutaneous coronary intervention), stroke, and all-cause mortality. The intention-to-treat (ITT) effect was estimated with adjusted Cox models and per-protocol effect with inverse probability of censoring weighting. RESULTS: A total of 65,096 individuals were included (mean age = 71.0 ± 5.5, female = 55.0%) and 93.7% were exposed. Whereas we observed a reduction in the composite outcome (ITT-hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.68-0.83) and mortality (ITT-HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.61-0.77) among exposed, coronary events increased (ITT-HR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.94). All multibias E-values were low indicating that the results were not robust to unmeasured confounding, selection, and misclassification biases simultaneously. CONCLUSION: We cannot conclude on the effectiveness of statins in primary prevention of CVD among older adults. We caution that an in-depth reflection on sources of biases and careful interpretation of results are always required in observational studies.

Trends in Phenylephrine and Pseudoephedrine Sales in the US.

This study examines purchasing patterns regarding oral decongestants, concerns about their efficacy, and the need for timelier postmarket evaluation.