Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024
Matching study design to prescribing intention: The prevalent new-user design for studying abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DiPrete Bethany L, Oh GYeon, Moga Daniela C, Dasgupta Nabarun, Slavova Svetla, Slade Emily, Delcher Chris, Pence Brian W, Ranapurwala Shabbar I
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In drug studies, research designs requiring no prior exposure to certain drug classes may restrict important populations. Since abuse-deterrent formulations (ADF) of opioids are routinely prescribed after other opioids, choice of study design, identification of appropriate comparators, and addressing confounding by "indication" are important considerations in ADF post-marketing studies.
METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study using claims data (2006-2018) from a North Carolina private insurer [NC claims] and Merative MarketScan [MarketScan], we identified patients (18-64 years old) initiating ADF or non-ADF extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids. We compared patient characteristics and described opioid treatment history between treatment groups, classifying patients as traditional (no opioid claims during prior six-month washout period) or prevalent new users.
RESULTS: We identified 8415 (NC claims) and 147 978 (MarketScan) ADF, and 10 114 (NC claims) and 232 028 (MarketScan) non-ADF ER/LA opioid initiators. Most had prior opioid exposure (ranging 64%-74%), and key clinical differences included higher prevalence of recent acute or chronic pain and surgery among patients initiating ADFs compared to non-ADF ER/LA initiators. Concurrent immediate-release opioid prescriptions at initiation were more common in prevalent new users than traditional new users.
CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration of the study design, comparator choice, and confounding by "indication" is crucial when examining ADF opioid use-related outcomes.
METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study using claims data (2006-2018) from a North Carolina private insurer [NC claims] and Merative MarketScan [MarketScan], we identified patients (18-64 years old) initiating ADF or non-ADF extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids. We compared patient characteristics and described opioid treatment history between treatment groups, classifying patients as traditional (no opioid claims during prior six-month washout period) or prevalent new users.
RESULTS: We identified 8415 (NC claims) and 147 978 (MarketScan) ADF, and 10 114 (NC claims) and 232 028 (MarketScan) non-ADF ER/LA opioid initiators. Most had prior opioid exposure (ranging 64%-74%), and key clinical differences included higher prevalence of recent acute or chronic pain and surgery among patients initiating ADFs compared to non-ADF ER/LA initiators. Concurrent immediate-release opioid prescriptions at initiation were more common in prevalent new users than traditional new users.
CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration of the study design, comparator choice, and confounding by "indication" is crucial when examining ADF opioid use-related outcomes.