Clinical Epidemiology & Analytics – filling the evidence gap - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Clinical epidemiology analytics filling the evidence gap l.jpg
Download
1 / 29

Clinical Epidemiology & Analytics – filling the evidence gap. Woodie M. Zachry, III, PhD Global Lead Clinical Epidemiology and Analytics. The Present – Overview of CE&A activities. Establishing the disease profile Natural history of the disease Issues in special populations

Related searches for Clinical Epidemiology & Analytics – filling the evidence gap

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Clinical Epidemiology & Analytics – filling the evidence gap

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Clinical epidemiology analytics filling the evidence gap l.jpg

Clinical Epidemiology & Analytics – filling the evidence gap

Woodie M. Zachry, III, PhD

Global Lead Clinical Epidemiology and Analytics


The present overview of ce a activities l.jpg

The Present – Overview of CE&A activities

Establishing the disease profile

  • Natural history of the disease

  • Issues in special populations

  • Incidence/prevalence of the disease

  • Risk factors of disease

    Identifying drug safety issues in collaboration with Pharmacovigilance

  • Safety issues of Abbott products and other current therapies

  • Subpopulations at higher risk?

  • Drug-drug interactions?

    Providing clinical trial support and instrumentation

  • Identifying biomarkers/surrogate endpoints and its relationship to outcomes

Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


Study types data sources l.jpg

Study Types & Data Sources

Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


Grade l.jpg

GRADE

  • The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE )

  • Provides a system for rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations that is explicit, comprehensive, transparent, and pragmatic and is increasingly being adopted by organizations worldwide

    • High quality— Further research is very unlikely to change the estimate of effect

    • Moderate quality— Further research is likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and may change the estimate

    • Low quality— Further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate

    • Very low quality— Any estimate of effect is very uncertain

Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


Hierarchy of evidence l.jpg

RCT

Meta-analysis

Case-Control

Case Series

Hierarchy of Evidence

Prospective

Less Bias

Observational Studies

Retrospective

Less Bias

Comparison with bias

Uncontrolled

Nonsystematic Clinical Experience

Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


Multiple ebm stakeholders l.jpg

Multiple EBM Stakeholders

CONSORT

Statement

RCTs

Levels

of Evidence

Chest

EMEA

Clinical

Practice

Guidelines

FDA

AHRQ

NIH

Users’ Guides

JAMA

QUORUM

Statement

Systematic Review

Meta-Analysis

HTAs

ACP Journal Club

Clinical Evidence

NICE

Cochrane

Collaborative

Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


Where we want to be l.jpg

Where we want to be

Evidence

Summaries across

All Phases

of Development and

Study Designs

Identify

Evidence

Gaps and Propose

Ways to Fill

Gaps

Evidence

Based

Approach

Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


Slide8 l.jpg

Case-Control analysis of ambulance, emergency room, or inpatient hospital events for epilepsy and antiepileptic drug formulation changes

Woodie M Zachry, III PhD

Quynhchau D Doan PhD

Jerry D Clewell, PharmD

Brien J Smith MD


Background epilepsy treatment l.jpg

Background Epilepsy Treatment

Disease & Treatment

  • Incidence: 200,000 cases annually in US, Prevalence: 1% from birth to age 20, then 3% by age 75.6

  • Treatment choice dependent upon Partial vs. Generalized presentation, history & secondary causes.

  • “A-rated” compounds are considered to be therapeutically bioequivalent to the reference listed drug (United States Food & Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation & Research)

  • Generic substitution, observational experience

    • 65% of US physicians surveyed reported caring for a patient who had a breakthrough seizure after a brand to generic switch.1

    • 49.2% of foreign physicians surveyed reported problems when switching from brand alternatives to generics.2

    • 67.8% of surveyed neurologists reported breakthrough seizures after a switch.3

    • 12.9% of Lamotrigine switches had to be switched back due to medical necessity (v.s 1.5-2.9 for Non-AED).4

    • 10.8% of patients switching supplier for CBZ, PHT, & VAL had perceived problems validated by GP.5

    • Berg MJ, Gross RA. Physicians and patients perceive that generic drug substitution of anti-epileptic drugs can cause breakthrough seizures - results from a U.S. survey. 60th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society; Dec 1-5, 2006; San Diego, California.

    • Kramer G. et al. Experience with generic drugs in epilepsy patients: an electronic survey of members of the German, Austrian and Swiss branches of the ILAE. Epilepsia 2007;48, 609-11.

    • Wilner AN. Therapeutic equivalency of generic antiepileptic drugs: results of a survey. Epilepsy Behavior 2004;5(6):995-8.

    • Andermann F, et al. Compulsory generic switching of antiepileptic drugs: high switchback rates ro branded compounds compared with other drug classes. Epilepsia 2007;48(3):464-9.

    • Crawford P. et al. Generic Prescribing for epilepsy. Is it safe? Siezure 1996;5:1-5.

    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/epilepsy/ Accessed October 10, 2007.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Confidence in treatment effect relationship l.jpg

    Confidence in Treatment-Effect Relationship

    Low

    High

    1Mednick D, Day D. JMCP 1997;3(1):66-75. 2Hennekens, C. Epidemiology in Medicine. 3Harris S. J Cont. Ed. In Health Prof 2000;20:133-45.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Methods l.jpg

    Methods

    • Objective: To determine if patients who received epilepsy care in an inpatient setting, emergency room, or ambulance have greater odds of having had a change between A rated AED medication alternatives in the past 6 months when compared to epileptic patients with no evidence of receiving epileptic care in similar settings.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Methods12 l.jpg

    Methods

    • Retrospective claims database analysis utilizing the Ingenix LabRx database

    • Case-control study

      • Unmatched & Matched 1:3 for age within 5 years and epilepsy diagnosis type

      • Index date for case patients: 1st seizure event requiring inpatient admission, emergency room visit, or ambulance during 3Q2006 – 4Q2006

      • Index date for control patients: 1st office visit during 3Q2006 – 4Q2006

    • Index primary ICD-9 diagnosis of 345.xx excluding 345.6

    • 12 and 64 years of age

    • No inpatient admission, emergency room visit, or ambulance in 6 months prior to index date

    • Possess at least 145 day supply of AED medication for 6 months prior to index event

    • Continuous eligibility for 6 months prior to index.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Diagnosis categories l.jpg

    Siezure type

    Generalized

    Convulsive 345.0

    Non-convulsive 345.1

    Petite mal status 345.2

    Grand mal status 345.3

    Partial

    Complex partial 345.4

    Simple partial 345.5

    Epilepsia partialis continua 345.7

    Other

    Other forms 345.8

    Epilepsy unspecified 345.9

    Modifier

    XXX.X0 – without mention of intractable epilepsy

    XXX.X1 – with mention of intractable epilepsy

    Diagnosis Categories

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Slide14 l.jpg

    All Patients (Non-Matched)

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Matched case control patients l.jpg

    Matched Case-Control Patients

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Slide16 l.jpg

    All Patients (Non-Matched)

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Matched case control patients17 l.jpg

    Matched Case-Control Patients

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Slide18 l.jpg

    All Patients (Non-Matched)

    • Odds of a change between A rated alternatives

      Odds ratio = 1.915 (95% CI, 1.387 - 2.644)

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    How to calculate an unmatched odds ratio l.jpg

    How to calculate an unmatched odds ratio

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Matched case control patients20 l.jpg

    Matched Case-Control Patients

    • Odds of a change between A rated alternatives

      Odds ratio = 1.811 (95% CI, 1.247 – 2.629)

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Matched case control patients excluding medicaid patients l.jpg

    Matched Case-Control Patients Excluding Medicaid Patients

    • Odds of a change between A rated alternatives

      Odds ratio = 1.855 (95% CI, 1.262 – 2.726)

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Matched case control patients excluding patients who changed dosage schedule l.jpg

    Matched Case-Control Patients Excluding Patients Who Changed Dosage Schedule

    • Odds of a change between A rated alternatives

      Odds ratio = 2.011 (95% CI, 1.189 – 3.4)

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Discussion l.jpg

    Discussion

    • This study tested a hypothesis and found a relationship between emergent and inpatient care visits and previous AED formulation switching. This is concordant with problems identified in the survey and case study literature.

      • surveyed physicians believe there may be potential safety problems associated with switching between AED formulations for the same medication

      • There is some evidence of a significant percentage of patients who must switch back to a branded formulation after trying a generic formulation.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Discussion25 l.jpg

    Discussion

    • This study assumes that patients experiencing break-through seizures will seek care in emergency and inpatient settings more often than ambulatory settings.

    • Study subjects seeking care for break through events in an ambulatory setting may have attenuated the true magnitude of the significant relationship found in this study.

    • Attempts were made to strengthen the assumption that subjects were taking AEDs. However, claims data only records the date a prescription was filled, not when or if the patient took the medication.

    • Subtle differences in formulations may take time to accumulate and effect outcomes. However, the majority of formulation changes occurred within 2 months of the index event.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Discussion26 l.jpg

    Discussion

    • Several factors may play a role in break through seizures that were not controlled for in this analysis (e.g., sleep deprivation, alcohol intake, hormonal influences). These effects may be additive to or even supersede formulation changes in precipitating break-through seizures.

    • Zonisamide became available as a generic during the study time period. The high percentage of zonisamide formulation changes may have played a role in the significant relationship discovered.

    • Case-control studies cannot establish a temporal association between AED formulation switches and outcomes.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Conclusions l.jpg

    Conclusions

    • This analysis has found an association between patients who utilized an ER, ambulance or inpatient hospital for epilepsy and the prior occurrence of AED formulation switching involving “A” rated generics.

      • After matching by age and epilepsy diagnosis, Cases had 81% greater odds of prior “A” rated switches compared to matched controls.

      • The case population had significantly more Medicaid patients.

      • Post hoc analyses excluding patients who had a dosage change and Medicaid patients did not change the significance of the original analysis.

      • Further investigations are warranted to better understand a possible cause-effect relationship.

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Slide28 l.jpg

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


    Hierarchy of evidence29 l.jpg

    RCT

    Meta-analysis

    Case-Control

    Case Series

    Hierarchy of Evidence

    Prospective

    Less Bias

    Observational Studies

    Retrospective

    Less Bias

    Comparison with bias

    Uncontrolled

    Nonsystematic Clinical Experience

    Company Confidential© 2009 Abbott


  • Login