Publications

OBJECTIVE: The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's Social and Administrative Sciences Section and the American Pharmacists Association-Academy of Pharmaceutical Research and Science's Economic, Social and Administrative Sciences Section formed a Gender Equity Task Force to determine if there is evidence to suggest that there is gender disparity in pay; responsibilities; treatment by peers/colleagues, students, and administration; leadership opportunities; and rank, tenure status, and career advancement for Section members; and to develop recommendations to address existing disparities.

METHODS: A Qualtrics survey was emailed in December 2020 to all American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's Social and Administrative Sciences and American Pharmacists Association-Academy of Pharmaceutical Research and Science's Economic, Social and Administrative Sciences Section members. The questionnaire included items regarding favorability toward men or women in various academic domains (research, teaching, service, recruitment, mentoring, and advancement). Participants were asked if they had experienced gender inequity, and if so, at what type of institution and academic rank. The χ2 tests of independence and post hoc comparisons were used to assess item responses according to gender.

RESULTS: Of the respondents, 72% indicated that they had experienced gender inequity. Women and persons of color were more likely to do so. Women commonly reported that men received more favorable treatment in nearly all academic domains, whereas men reported that women and men were treated equally.

CONCLUSION: Pharmacy faculty specializing in social and administrative sciences reported experiences of gender inequity and perceptions of gender inequity. Perception gaps existed between male and female faculty in numerous academic domains. Colleges and schools of pharmacy should increase awareness of, and strive to self-assess, gender inequity in their institutions.

IMPORTANCE: Drug shortages are a persistent public health issue that increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both the US and Canada follow similar regulatory standards and require reporting of drug-related supply chain issues that may result in shortages. However, it is unknown what proportion are associated with meaningful shortages (defined by a significant decrease in drug supply) and whether differences exist between Canada and the US.

OBJECTIVE: To compare how frequently reports of drug-related supply chain issues in the US vs Canada were associated with drug shortages.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal cross-sectional study conducted from January 2023 to March 2024 using drug-related reports of supply chain issues from 2017 to 2021 that were less than 180 days apart in Canada and the US. Shortages were assessed using data from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database, comprising 89% of US and 100% of Canadian drug purchases.

EXPOSURE: Country (Canada vs US), timing of report issuance (before vs after the COVID-19 pandemic), and characteristics of the supply chain prior to the reports of drug-related supply chain issues (including World Health Organization essential medicine status, Health Canada tier 3 medicine [moderate risk classification], whether there was sole-source manufacturing of the drug, the formulation, the price per unit, ≥20 years since drug approval, and the number of therapeutic alternatives).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A drug shortage (a decrease of ≥33% in monthly purchased standardized drug units) within 12 months, relative to the average units purchased during the 6 months prior to the report of supply chain issues to a US or Canadian reporting system.

RESULTS: Among the 104 drug-related reports of supply chain issues in both countries, 49.0% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.7%) were associated with drug shortages in the US vs 34.0% (95% CI, 25.0%-45.0%) in Canada (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.79]). The lower risk of drug shortages in Canada vs the US was consistent before the COVID-19 pandemic (adjusted HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.30-0.75]) and after the pandemic (adjusted HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.15-0.66]). After combining reports of supply chain issues in both countries, the shortage risk was double for sole-sourced drugs (adjusted HR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.57-4.24]) and nearly half for Canadian tier 3 medicines (moderate risk) (adjusted HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.98]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Drug-related reports of supply chain issues were 40% less likely to result in meaningful drug shortages in Canada compared with the US. These findings highlight the need for international cooperation between countries to curb the effects of drug shortages and improve resiliency of the supply chain for drugs.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy persists alongside concerns about the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. We aimed to examine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on risk of death among US veterans.

METHODS: We conducted a target trial emulation to estimate and compare risk of death up to 60 days under two COVID-19 vaccination strategies: vaccination within 7 days of enrollment versus no vaccination through follow-up. The study cohort included individuals aged ≥18 years enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration system and eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination according to guideline recommendations from 1 March 2021 through 1 July 2021. The outcomes of interest included deaths from any cause and excluding a COVID-19 diagnosis. Observations were cloned to both treatment strategies, censored, and weighted to estimate per-protocol effects.

RESULTS: We included 3 158 507 veterans. Under the vaccination strategy, 364 993 received vaccine within 7 days. At 60 days, there were 156 deaths per 100 000 veterans under the vaccination strategy versus 185 deaths under the no vaccination strategy, corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -25.9 (95% confidence limit [CL], -59.5 to 2.7) and relative risk of 0.86 (95% CL, .7 to 1.0). When those with a COVID-19 infection in the first 60 days were censored, the absolute risk difference was -20.6 (95% CL, -53.4 to 16.0) with a relative risk of 0.88 (95% CL, .7 to 1.1).

CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower but not statistically significantly different risk of death in the first 60 days. These results agree with prior scientific knowledge suggesting vaccination is safe with the potential for substantial health benefits.

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.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance pharmacovigilance is an emerging approach to identify medications with unanticipated effects. We previously developed a framework called pharmacopeia-wide association studies (PharmWAS) that limits false positive medication associations through high-dimensional confounding adjustment and set enrichment. We aimed to assess the transportability and generalizability of the PharmWAS framework by using medical claims data to reproduce known medication associations with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) or gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS: We conducted case-control studies using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database of individuals enrolled in large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States. Individuals with CDI (from 2010 to 2015) or GIB (from 2010 to 2021) were matched to controls by age and sex. We identified all medications utilized prior to diagnosis and analysed the association of each with CDI or GIB using conditional logistic regression adjusted for risk factors for the outcome and a high-dimensional propensity score.

FINDINGS: For the CDI study, we identified 55,137 cases, 220,543 controls, and 290 medications to analyse. Antibiotics with Gram-negative spectrum, including ciprofloxacin (aOR 2.83), ceftriaxone (aOR 2.65), and levofloxacin (aOR 1.60), were strongly associated. For the GIB study, we identified 450,315 cases, 1,801,260 controls, and 354 medications to analyse. Antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including ticagrelor (aOR 2.81), naproxen (aOR 1.87), and rivaroxaban (aOR 1.31), were strongly associated.

INTERPRETATION: These studies demonstrate the generalizability and transportability of the PharmWAS pharmacovigilance framework. With additional validation, PharmWAS could complement traditional passive surveillance systems to identify medications that unexpectedly provoke or prevent high-impact conditions.

FUNDING: U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Prior research documented racial and ethnic disparities in health care experiences within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Little is known about such differences in VA-funded community care programs, through which a growing number of Veterans receive health care. Community care is available to Veterans when care is not available through the VA, nearby, or in a timely manner.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in Veterans' experiences with VA-funded community care by race and ethnicity and assess changes in these experiences from 2016 to 2021.

DESIGN: Observational analyses of Veterans' ratings of community care experiences by self-reported race and ethnicity. We used linear and logistic regressions to estimate racial and ethnic differences in community care experiences, sequentially adjusting for demographic, health, insurance, and socioeconomic factors.

PARTICIPANTS: Respondents to the 2016-2021 VA Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Community Care Survey.

MEASURES: Care ratings in nine domains.

KEY RESULTS: The sample of 231,869 respondents included 24,306 Black Veterans (mean [SD] age 56.5 [12.9] years, 77.5% male) and 16,490 Hispanic Veterans (mean [SD] age 54.6 [15.9] years, 85.3% male). In adjusted analyses pooled across study years, Black and Hispanic Veterans reported significantly lower ratings than their White and non-Hispanic counterparts in five of nine domains (overall rating of community providers, scheduling a recent appointment, provider communication, non-appointment access, and billing), with adjusted differences ranging from - 0.04 to - 0.13 standard deviations (SDs) of domain scores. Black and Hispanic Veterans reported higher ratings with eligibility determination and scheduling initial appointments than their White and non-Hispanic counterparts, and Black Veterans reported higher ratings of care coordination, with adjusted differences of 0.05 to 0.21 SDs. Care ratings improved from 2016 to 2021, but differences between racial and ethnic groups persisted.

CONCLUSIONS: This study identified small but persistent racial and ethnic differences in Veterans' experiences with VA-funded community care, with Black and Hispanic Veterans reporting lower ratings in five domains and, respectively, higher ratings in three and two domains. Interventions to improve Black and Hispanic Veterans' patient experience could advance equity in VA community care.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall.

CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.

IMPORTANCE: Accurately predicting major bleeding events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is crucial for personalized treatment and improving patient outcomes, especially with emerging alternatives like left atrial appendage closure devices. The left atrial appendage closure devices reduce stroke risk comparably but with significantly fewer non-procedural bleeding events.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) risk models in predicting clinically significant bleeding events requiring hospitalization and hemorrhagic stroke in non-valvular AF patients on DOACs compared to conventional bleeding risk scores (HAS-BLED, ORBIT, and ATRIA) at the index visit to a cardiologist for AF management.

DESIGN: Prognostic modeling with retrospective cohort study design using electronic health record (EHR) data, with clinical follow-up at one-, two-, and five-years.

SETTING: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) system.

PARTICIPANTS: 24,468 non-valvular AF patients aged ≥18 years treated with DOACs, excluding those with prior history of significant bleeding, other indications for DOACs, on warfarin or contraindicated to DOACs.

EXPOSURES: DOAC therapy for non-valvular AF.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary endpoint was clinically significant bleeding requiring hospitalization within one year of index visit. The models incorporated demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables available in the EHR at the index visit.

RESULTS: Among 24,468 patients, 553 (2.3%) had bleeding events within one year, 829 (3.5%) within two years, and 1,292 (5.8%) within five years of index visit. We evaluated multivariate logistic regression and ML models including random forest, classification trees, k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) which modestly outperformed HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and ORBIT scores in predicting clinically significant bleeding at 1-year follow-up. The best performing model (random forest) showed area under the curve (AUC-ROC) 0.76 (0.70-0.81), G-Mean score of 0.67, net reclassification index 0.14 compared to 0.57 (0.50-0.63), G-Mean score of 0.57 for HASBLED score, p-value for difference <0.001. The ML models had improved performance compared to conventional risk across time-points of 2-year and 5-years and within the subgroup of hemorrhagic stroke. SHAP analysis identified novel risk factors including measures from body mass index, cholesterol profile, and insurance type beyond those used in conventional risk scores.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings demonstrate the superior performance of ML models compared to conventional bleeding risk scores and identify novel risk factors highlighting the potential for personalized bleeding risk assessment in AF patients on DOACs.