Comparative effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies to prevent fetal exposure to mycophenolate

A. Sarayani, Yasser Albogami, M. Elkhider, J. Hincapie-Castillo, B. Brumback, A. Winterstein
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies to prevent fetal exposure to mycophenolate","authors":"A. Sarayani, Yasser Albogami, M. Elkhider, J. Hincapie-Castillo, B. Brumback, A. Winterstein","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background In 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programme including mandatory prescriber training and a patient/provider acknowledgement form to prevent fetal exposure to mycophenolate. Prior to the REMS, the teratogenic risk was solely mitigated via written information (black box warning, medication guide (MG period)). To date, there is no evidence on the effectiveness of the REMS. Methods We used a national private health insurance claims database to identify women aged 15–44 who filled ≥1 mycophenolate prescription. To compare fetal exposure during REMS with the MG period, we estimated the prevalence of pregnancy at treatment initiation in a pre/post comparison (analysis 1) and the rate of conception during treatment in a retrospective cohort study (analysis 2). Pregnancy episodes were measured based on diagnosis and procedure codes for pregnancy outcomes or prenatal screening. We used generalised estimating equation models with inverse probability of treatment weighting to calculate risk estimates. Results The adjusted proportion of existing pregnancy per 1000 treatment initiations was 1.7 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.9) vs 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.4) during the REMS and MG period. The adjusted prevalence ratio and prevalence difference were 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.74) and −2.4 (95% CI −3.8 to −1.0), respectively. In analysis 2, the adjusted rate of conception was 12.5 (95% CI 8.9 to 17.6) vs 12.9 (95% CI 9.9 to 16.9) per 1000 years of mycophenolate exposure time in the REMS versus MG periods. The adjusted risk ratio and risk difference were 0.97 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.49) and −0.4 (95% CI −5.9 to 5.0), respectively. Sensitivity analyses on the estimated conception date demonstrated robustness of our findings. Conclusion While the REMS programme achieved less pregnancies at treatment initiation, it failed to prevent the onset of pregnancy during treatment. Enhanced approaches to ensure effective contraception during treatment should be considered.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"636 - 644"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010098","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background In 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programme including mandatory prescriber training and a patient/provider acknowledgement form to prevent fetal exposure to mycophenolate. Prior to the REMS, the teratogenic risk was solely mitigated via written information (black box warning, medication guide (MG period)). To date, there is no evidence on the effectiveness of the REMS. Methods We used a national private health insurance claims database to identify women aged 15–44 who filled ≥1 mycophenolate prescription. To compare fetal exposure during REMS with the MG period, we estimated the prevalence of pregnancy at treatment initiation in a pre/post comparison (analysis 1) and the rate of conception during treatment in a retrospective cohort study (analysis 2). Pregnancy episodes were measured based on diagnosis and procedure codes for pregnancy outcomes or prenatal screening. We used generalised estimating equation models with inverse probability of treatment weighting to calculate risk estimates. Results The adjusted proportion of existing pregnancy per 1000 treatment initiations was 1.7 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.9) vs 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.4) during the REMS and MG period. The adjusted prevalence ratio and prevalence difference were 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.74) and −2.4 (95% CI −3.8 to −1.0), respectively. In analysis 2, the adjusted rate of conception was 12.5 (95% CI 8.9 to 17.6) vs 12.9 (95% CI 9.9 to 16.9) per 1000 years of mycophenolate exposure time in the REMS versus MG periods. The adjusted risk ratio and risk difference were 0.97 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.49) and −0.4 (95% CI −5.9 to 5.0), respectively. Sensitivity analyses on the estimated conception date demonstrated robustness of our findings. Conclusion While the REMS programme achieved less pregnancies at treatment initiation, it failed to prevent the onset of pregnancy during treatment. Enhanced approaches to ensure effective contraception during treatment should be considered.
预防胎儿接触麦考酚酸盐的风险缓解策略的比较有效性
背景2012年,美国食品和药物管理局批准了一项风险评估和缓解策略(REMS)计划,包括强制性处方医生培训和患者/提供者确认表,以防止胎儿接触霉酚酸酯。在REMS之前,仅通过书面信息(黑匣子警告、药物指南(MG期))来减轻致畸风险。迄今为止,没有证据表明REMS的有效性。方法我们使用国家私人健康保险索赔数据库来识别15-44岁的女性,她们开具了≥1个霉酚酸酯处方。为了比较REMS和MG期间的胎儿暴露,我们在前后比较中估计了治疗开始时的妊娠率(分析1),在回顾性队列研究中估计了在治疗期间的受孕率(分析2)。妊娠事件是根据妊娠结果或产前筛查的诊断和程序代码进行测量的。我们使用具有治疗加权逆概率的广义估计方程模型来计算风险估计。结果在REMS和MG期间,每1000次治疗中已有妊娠的调整比例为1.7(95%CI 1.0-2.9)vs 4.1(95%CI 3.2-5.4)。调整后的患病率和患病率差异分别为0.42(95%CI 0.24至0.74)和−2.4(95%CI−3.8至−1.0)。在分析2中,在REMS与MG时期,每1000年霉酚酸酯暴露时间的调整受孕率为12.5(95%CI 8.9-17.6)vs 12.9(95%CI 9.9-16.9)。调整后的风险比和风险差分别为0.97(95%CI 0.63至1.49)和−0.4(95%CI−5.9至5.0)。对预计受孕日期的敏感性分析证明了我们的研究结果的稳健性。结论虽然REMS方案在治疗开始时减少了妊娠,但未能在治疗期间预防妊娠的发生。应考虑采取强化措施,确保在治疗期间有效避孕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信