The risk-to-benefit ratio of cardioprotective medications in frail older adults is uncertain. The objective was to systematically review prescribing of guideline-recommended cardioprotective medications following myocardial infarction (MI) in people who are frail.
Ovid Medline, PubMed and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2022 for studies that reported prescribing of one or more cardioprotective medication classes post-MI or acute coronary syndromes in people with frailty.
We included observational studies that reported prescribing of cardioprotective medications post-MI stratified by frailty status.
Overall, 16 cohort studies published from 2013 to 2022 that used seven different frailty scales were included. Prescribing of all cardioprotective medication classes following MI was lower in frail compared to non-frail people, with absolute rates of prescribing varying substantially across studies. Median prescribing in frail and non-frail people, respectively, was 88.9% (IQR 81.5-96.2) and 93.1% (IQR 92.0-98.9) for aspirin; 68.1% (IQR 61.9-91.2) and 86.7% (IQR 79.5-92.8) for P2Y12-inhibitors; 83.1% (IQR 76.9-91.3) and 94.0% (IQR 87.1-95.9) for lipid-lowering therapy; 67.9% (IQR 60.6-74.0) and 74.7% (IQR 71.3-84.5) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blockers; and 74.1% (IQR 69.2-79) and 77.6% (IQR 71.8-85.9) for beta-blockers.
People who were frail were less likely to be prescribed guideline recommended medication classes post-MI than those who were non-frail. Further research is needed into treatment benefits and risks in frail people to avoid unnecessarily withholding treatment in this high-risk population, while also minimising potential for medication related harm.

Off-label medicines use is a common and sometimes necessary practice in many populations, with important clinical, ethical and financial consequences, including potential unintended harm or lack of effectiveness. No internationally recognized guidelines exist to aid decision-makers in applying research evidence to inform off-label medicines use. We aimed to critically evaluate current evidence informing decision-making for off-label use and to develop consensus recommendations to improve future practice and research.
We conducted a scoping review to summarize the literature on available off-label use guidance, including types, extent and scientific rigor of evidence incorporated. Findings informed the development of consensus recommendations by an international multidisciplinary Expert Panel using a modified Delphi process. Our target audience includes clinicians, patients and caregivers, researchers, regulators, sponsors, health technology assessment bodies, payers and policy makers.
We found 31 published guidance documents on therapeutic decision-making for off-label use. Of 20 guidances with general recommendations, only 35% detailed the types and quality of evidence needed and the processes for its evaluation to reach sound, ethical decisions about appropriate use. There was no globally recognized guidance. To optimize future therapeutic decision-making, we recommend: (1) seeking rigorous scientific evidence; (2) utilizing diverse expertise in evidence evaluation and synthesis; (3) using rigorous processes to formulate recommendations for appropriate use; (4) linking off-label use with timely conduct of clinically meaningful research (including real-world evidence) to address knowledge gaps quickly; and (5) fostering partnerships between clinical decision-makers, researchers, regulators, policy makers, and sponsors to facilitate cohesive implementation and evaluation of these recommendations.
We provide comprehensive consensus recommendations to optimize therapeutic decision-making for off-label medicines use and concurrently drive clinically relevant research. Successful implementation requires appropriate funding and infrastructure support to engage necessary stakeholders and foster relevant partnerships, representing significant challenges that policy makers must urgently address.

The French health insurance data warehouse named SNDS is one of the largest medico-administrative in the world allowing for powerful pharmacoepidemiological studies, based on real-life data collected prospectively. In addition to the absolute necessity of a strong pharmacological rationale, recommendations have been thought to improve the quality of pharmacoepidemiological studies. These guidelines emphasize the importance of an accurate definition of the study population, outcome and exposure, especially for studies performed on medico-administrative databases. Compliance with certain guidelines, particularly those concerning the identification of a specific population or an outcome and the definition of risk periods or exposure periods, may be difficult when performing studies on the SNDS because of its structure and the nature of the data recorded. The objective of this article is to provide advice for the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies according to the recommendations when using the SNDS, given its specificities. The performing of reliable studies from this rich but complex data warehouse requires the expertise of researchers with deep knowledge both in the SNDS and in pharmacological reasoning.

The French health insurance data warehouse named SNDS is one of the largest medico-administrative in the world allowing for powerful pharmacoepidemiological studies, based on real-life data collected prospectively. In addition to the absolute necessity of a strong pharmacological rationale, recommendations have been thought to improve the quality of pharmacoepidemiological studies. These guidelines emphasize the importance of an accurate definition of the study population, outcome and exposure, especially for studies performed on medico-administrative databases. Compliance with certain guidelines, particularly those concerning the identification of a specific population or an outcome and the definition of risk periods or exposure periods, may be difficult when performing studies on the SNDS because of its structure and the nature of the data recorded. The objective of this article is to provide advice for the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies according to the recommendationswhen using the SNDS, given its specificities. The performing of reliable studies from this rich but complex data warehouse requires the expertise of researchers with deep knowledge both in the SNDS and in pharmacological reasoning.

Background: Colistin is an effective therapy against multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. However, nephrotoxicity is a major issue with its use. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the incidence and the potential risk factors of nephrotoxicity in colistin-treated patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. All adult patients aged 18 years and older who received colistin for ≥72 h were included in the study, while end-stage kidney disease patients requiring dialysis or had renal transplants were excluded. The incidence and severity of acute kidney injury (AKI) were assessed based on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Result: Out of 128 patients who received colistin, 51.56% of them have experienced AKI. The incidence was increased among oldest patients (above 80) and those who did not receive the appropriate dose (p-value = 0.0003). In addition, the median time until the AKI occurred was 10 days after receiving the colistin treatment. Rates of AKI in patients with previous AKI (71.7%) were three times higher than patients who did not previously experience AKI (HR = 2.97, 95% CI [1.8-4.8]). Conclusions: Nephrotoxicity is a significant issue among patients who receive colistin in the hospital, especially among older patients and those who did not receive the appropriate dose. As a result, healthcare providers should play a major role in colistin dosing, especially among the older adult population.

Racial disparities in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have not been fully documented in a community setting.
In the ARIC Surveillance Study (2005-2014), we examined racial differences in GDMT at discharge, its temporal trends, and the prognostic impact among individuals with hospitalized HFrEF, using weighted regression models to account for sampling design. Optimal GDMT was defined as beta blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) and ACE inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Acceptable GDMT included either one of BB, MRA, ACEI/ARB or hydralazine plus nitrates (H-N).
Of 16,455 (unweighted n = 3,669) HFrEF cases, 47% were Black. Only ~ 10% were discharged with optimal GDMT with higher proportion in Black than White individuals (11.1% vs. 8.6%, p < 0.001). BB use was > 80% in both racial groups while Black individuals were more likely to receive ACEI/ARB (62.0% vs. 54.6%) and MRA (18.0% vs. 13.8%) than Whites, with a similar pattern for H-N (21.8% vs. 10.1%). There was a trend of decreasing use of optimal GDMT in both groups, with significant decline of ACEI/ARB use in Whites (- 2.8% p < 0.01) but increasing H-N use in both groups (+ 6.5% and + 9.2%, p < 0.01). Only ACEI/ARB and BB were associated with lower 1-year mortality.
Optimal GDMT was prescribed in only ~ 10% of HFrEF patients at discharge but was more so in Black than White individuals. ACEI/ARB use declined in Whites while H-N use increased in both races. GDMT utilization, particularly ACEI/ARB, should be improved in Black and Whites individuals with HFrEF.

European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society 2019 guidelines recommend more aggressive lipid targets in high- and very high-risk patients and the addition of adjuvant treatments to statins in uncontrolled patients. We aimed to assess (a) achievement of prior and new European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society lipid targets and (b) lipid-lowering therapy prescribing in a nationwide cohort of very high-risk patients.
We conducted a retrospective observational population study using linked health data in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (2012-2017). Follow-up was for one-year post-discharge.
Altogether, 10,071 patients had a documented LDL-C level, of whom 48% had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)<1.8 mmol/l (2016 target) and (23%) <1.4 mmol/l (2019 target). Five thousand three hundred and forty patients had non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) documented with 57% <2.6 mmol/l (2016) and 37% <2.2 mmol/l (2019). In patients with recurrent vascular events, fewer than 6% of the patients achieved the 2019 LDL-C target of <1.0 mmol/l. A total of 10,592 patients had triglyceride (TG) levels documented, of whom 14% were ≥2.3 mmol/l and 41% ≥1.5 mmol/l (2019). High-intensity statins were prescribed in 56.4% of the cohort, only 3% were prescribed ezetimibe, fibrates or prescription-grade N-3 fatty acids. Prescribing of these agents was lower amongst patients above target LDL-C, non-HDL-C and triglyceride levels. Females were more likely to have LDL-C, non-HDL-C and triglyceride levels above target.
There was a low rate of achievement of the new European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society lipid targets in this large post-percutaneous coronary intervention population and relatively low rates of intensive lipid-lowering therapy prescribing in those with uncontrolled lipids. There is considerable potential to optimise lipid-lowering therapy further through statin intensification and appropriate use of novel lipid-lowering therapy, especially in women.

Background: Drug utilization studies based on real-world data are vital for the identification of potentially needed improvements to rational prescribing. This is particularly important for the pharmacological treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) due to the associated potential side effects and the frequent use. Whereas prevalent use is well-characterized, studies on first-time use of ADHD medication are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate off-label prescribing in first-time users of ADHD medication among children and adolescents in Germany based on three criteria: (i) lack of a documented ADHD diagnosis; (ii) first-time pharmacological treatment with a second-line drug; and (iii) patient age below 6 years. Methods: Based on German claims data, we included children and adolescents aged 0-17 years with a first-time dispensation of any ADHD medication in the period 2015-2017. These first-time users were characterized with regard to sex, age, specialty of the prescribing physician, documentation of an ADHD diagnosis, psychiatric hospitalization, psychiatric comorbidities, and history of other psychopharmacological drugs at first-time use. Results: The study population comprised 18,703 pediatric first-time users of ADHD medication. Of these, 9.8% had no documented ADHD diagnosis. Most of the ADHD drug users received first-line ADHD pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate, atomoxetine), whereas 2.6% were prescribed second-line ADHD medication (lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, dexamfetamine, multiple ADHD drugs) as first drug. Overall, 1.2% of first-time users were aged below 6 years. A total of 12.7% of the study population met any off-label criterion. Conclusions: About 13% of pediatric first-time users of ADHD medication in Germany received an off-label pharmacotherapy at first-time use. Prescribing ADHD medication without a confirmed ADHD diagnosis was the most common of the three assessed off-label criteria. Off-label prescribing regarding drug choice and age of patients only occurred in a small percentage of initial pharmacological ADHD treatment. Our results suggest the need for improvement in rational prescribing, especially with regard to diagnostic requirements.

The use of big data containing millions of primary care medical records provides an opportunity for rapid research to help inform patient care and policy decisions during the first and subsequent waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Routinely collected primary care data have previously been used for national pandemic surveillance, quantifying associations between exposures and outcomes, identifying high risk populations, and examining the effects of interventions at scale, but there is no consensus on how to effectively conduct or report these data for COVID-19 research. A COVID-19 primary care database consortium was established in April 2020 and its researchers have ongoing COVID-19 projects in overlapping data sets with over 40 million primary care records in the United Kingdom that are variously linked to public health, secondary care, and vital status records. This consensus agreement is aimed at facilitating transparency and rigor in methodological approaches, and consistency in defining and reporting cases, exposures, confounders, stratification variables, and outcomes in relation to the pharmacoepidemiology of COVID-19. This will facilitate comparison, validation, and meta-analyses of research during and after the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Two recent high-profile publications (and subsequent retractions) of pharmacoepidemiology studies reporting the effectiveness and risk of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients received international media attention. Transparent and complete reporting of these studies could have provided peer reviewers and editors with sufficient information to question the methods used and the validity of results. Since these studies used routinely collected health data, the guidelines for the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) should have been applied to ensure complete reporting of the research.
METHODS: We evaluated the two retracted articles for completeness of reporting using the RECORD for Pharmacoepidemiology (RECORD-PE) checklist, which includes the checklists for the STengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and RECORD. We compared the proportion of STROBE, RECORD and RECORD-PE items adequately reported using Chi-squared statistics.
RESULTS: In the article published by The Lancet, 29 of 34 STROBE items (85.3%) were adequately reported, compared with 3.5 of 13 RECORD items (26.9%) and 9.5 of 15 RECORD-PE items (63.3%)(χ2 = 14.839, P <0.001). Similarly, the article published in NEJM reported 24 of 34 STROBE items (70.6%), two of 13 RECORD items (15.4%), and 7.5 of 15 RECORD-PE items (50.0%) (χ2 = 11.668, P = 0.003). Important aspects of the methods unique to research using routinely collected health data were not reported, including variables used to identify exposure, outcome and confounders, validation of the coding or algorithms, a description of the underlying database population and the accuracy of data linkage methods.
CONCLUSIONS: While STROBE items were generally adequately reported, RECORD and RECORD-PE items were not. Reporting guidelines should be effectively implemented in order for transparency and completeness of research manuscripts, allowing for adequate evaluation by editors and peer reviewers.