Dataset Information

Real-World Fetal Exposure to Acne Treatments in the United States: A Retrospective Analysis from 2006 to 2015.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Several studies have evaluated the effects of changes in isotretinoin risk mitigation programs, but little is known about actual fetal exposure rates in the context of other acne treatments.

Objective

Our objective was to quantify fetal exposure rates during the use of common acne treatments.

Methods

Employing the insurance claims data of > 100,000 acne treatment users between 2006 and 2015, we created three user cohorts: (1) isotretinoin (strong teratogen/mandatory risk mitigation program), (2) doxycycline/minocycline (mild teratogen, label warning), and (3) topical clindamycin/erythromycin (no fetal risk). Fetal exposure rates overall and stratified by age were compared after adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

Contraceptive use during acne treatment was < 50% in isotretinoin users and < 30% in the other study groups. Long-acting contraceptives contributed to 1% of all contraceptives used, with 90% being oral contraceptives. Isotretinoin users had 19.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.3 to 17.9) fewer fetal exposures per 1000 person-years of use compared with doxycycline/minocycline users, which in turn had 28.8 (95% CI 31.2 to 26.3) fewer pregnancies compared with clindamycin/erythromycin users. Stratification by age showed attenuated differences in fetal exposure among acne treatment groups for teenagers.

Conclusion

Fetal exposure to acne treatments varied according to levels of teratogenicity, with reduced rates among users of isotretinoin and to a lesser extent doxycycline/minocycline. Teenagers had low pregnancy rates but less pronounced differences in fetal exposure across acne treatments.

SUBMITTER: Albogami Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7994218 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although annual mortality trends for prostate cancer were stabilized in recent years, understanding the exact treatment changes is necessary for optimal management. Utilization of not-otherwise specified (NOS) treatments for prostate cancer was unclear. Thus, this study aimed to analyze trends in treatment for prostate cancer in the U.S. from 2010 to 2015 and examine whether the treatment for the prostate cancer in the U.S. is compliant with clinical practice guidelines. Using joinpoint regression models, we examined trends in the rate and proportion of age-standardized utilization (ASUR and ASUP) of treatments for prostate cancer diagnosed during 2010-2015 in the U.S. based on the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER, 2018 data-release, with linkage to active surveillance/watchful waiting [AS/WW]) cancer registry program. Among 316,690 men with prostate cancer diagnosed during 2010-2015, ASUR and ASUP for radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, AS/WW and NOS treatment were 32.7, 34.4, 10.0 and 40.1 per 100,000, and 27.9%, 29.3%, 8.5% and 34.2%, respectively. Trends in the overall ASUR for prostate cancer treatments differed by cancer risk group, patients' age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score, insurance status, and the average education level, average poverty-level and foreign-born person percentage of the patient's residence-county, but not by rural-urban continuum or region. ASUP of radical prostatectomy decreased from 9.8% in 2010 to 4.8% in 2015 (annual percent change [APC] = -12.0%, 95% CI, -15.9 to -7.9%), and the decrease was observed in all different risk groups. ASUP of AS/WW increased from 16.4% in 2010 to 30.2% in 2013 (APC = 22.7%, 95% CI, 4.6 to 44.0%) and then remained stable through 2013 to 2015 (APC = 1.9%, 95% CI, -24.1 to 36.9%). The increasing tendency of AS/WW only occurred in the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. The ASUP of NOS treatment has increased from 32.3% in 2010 to 36.8% in 2015 (P<0.01). In conclusion, ASUR and ASUP for prostate cancer treatments, including NOS treatment, had changed during 2010-2015. Their trends appeared to differ by cancer risk-group, age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score and socioeconomic factors. Future studies are warranted to understand the impacts of upward trends in ASUP of NOS treatments and AS/WW on patient survival and prostate cancer mortality.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis management guidelines endorse use of biomarkers to support clinical assessment and treatment decisions in septic patients. The impact of biomarkers on improving patient outcomes remains uncertain.MethodsRetrospective observational study of adult sepsis discharges between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015, from Premier Healthcare Database hospitals. Sepsis was defined by an All Patients Refined Diagnosis-Related Group code of 720 (septicemia and disseminated infections). Use of four biomarker strategies was evaluated based on hospital records: (i) >1 procalcitonin (PCT), (ii) 1 PCT, (iii) no PCT but ≥1 C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or lactate and (iv) no sepsis biomarkers. Associations between biomarker use and clinical and cost outcomes were examined. The primary outcome was impact of biomarker strategy on hospital costs per day.ResultsAmong 933,591 adult sepsis discharges during the study period, 731,392 (78%) had biomarker tests ordered. In multivariable analyses, discharges with >1 PCT had higher hospital costs per day ($1,904; 95% confidence interval [CI] $1,896-$1,911) compared with discharges with no sepsis biomarkers ($1,606; 95% CI $1,658-$1,664). Discharges with >1 PCT also had greater illness severity and antimicrobial exposure compared with other biomarker-use groups. The adjusted odds of dying during hospital stay compared with being discharged were significantly lower for sepsis discharges with >1 PCT (0.64; 95% CI 0.61-0.67) and 1 PCT (0.88; 95% CI 0.85-0.91) compared with no sepsis biomarker use. The proportion of discharges with ≥1 PCT increased almost six-fold during the study; use of other biomarkers remained constant.ConclusionsBetween 2012 and 2015, PCT use among sepsis discharges increased six-fold while lactate and CRP use remained unchanged. PCT use was associated with decreased odds of in-hospital mortality but increased hospital costs per day. Serial biomarker monitoring may be associated with improved patient outcomes in the most critically ill septic patients.

Project description:ImportanceDifferences among pediatric transplant centers in long-term survival of pediatric recipients of heart transplants can be mostly explained by differences in 90-day mortality.ObjectiveTo understand characteristics associated with high-performing pediatric HT centers by comparing key outcomes among centers stratified by 90-day risk-adjusted mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included recipients of HT aged younger than 18 years in the US. Analyses included 44 US centers during 2006 to 2015 using the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network database. A risk model for 90-day mortality was developed using data from all recipients to estimate expected 90-day mortality and 90-day standardized mortality ratio (SMR; calculated as observed mortality divided by expected mortality) for each center. Centers were stratified into tertiles by SMR and compared for key outcomes. Data were analyzed from January to March 2020.ExposuresHigh-, medium-, and low-performing centers (SMR tertile).Main outcomes and measuresPosttransplant 90-day mortality across recipient risk spectrum and incidence of and mortality following early posttransplant complications.ResultsOf 3211 children analyzed, 1016 (31.6%) were infants younger than 1 year and 1459 (45.4%) were girls. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (0-12) years. Centers were stratified by SMR tertile, and SMR was 0 to 0.71 among 15 high-performing centers, 0.79 to 1.12 among 14 medium-performing centers, and 1.19 to 3.33 among 15 low-performing centers. High-performing centers had 90-day mortality of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.8%) in children with low risk and expected mortality of 2.0%, 2.3% (95% CI, 0.6%-5.7%) in children with intermediate risk and expected mortality of 6.5%, and 16.7% (95% CI, 7.9%-29.3%) in children with high risk and expected mortality of 30.8%. Incidence of acute rejection during transplant hospitalization was 10.3% at high-performing centers, 10.3% at medium-performing centers, and 9.7% at low-performing centers (P for trend = .68), and incidence of post-HT kidney failure requiring dialysis was 4.1% at high-performing centers, 5.2% at medium-performing centers, and 8.5% at low-performing centers (P for trend = .001). Ninety-day mortality was significantly lower at high-performing centers among children treated for rejection (high-performing: 2.0%; medium-performing: 6.9%; low-performing: 11.7%; P for trend = .006) and among recipients receiving dialysis for post-HT kidney failure (high-performing: 17.5%; medium-performing: 39.4%; low-performing: 47.6%; P for trend < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that high-performing pediatric HT centers had lower 90-day mortality across the recipient risk spectrum and lower mortality among recipients who develop rejection or post-HT kidney failure during transplant hospitalization. These findings suggest presence of superior processes and systems of care at high-performing pediatric HT centers.