Dataset Information

Development and validation of a prognostic model for leflunomide discontinuation with abnormal blood tests during long-term treatment: cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop and validate a prognostic model for LEF discontinuation with abnormal blood test results.

Methods

Data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum were used for model development and external validation, respectively. Participants prescribed LEF between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2019 were followed up from 6 months after the first general practitioner prescription to the earliest of date of outcome, death, 5 year follow-up or 31 December 2019. Candidate prognostic factors were ascertained using theory and data-driven approaches. Penalized Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation, followed by internal validation using 500 bootstraps to correct for optimism. Multiple imputation was applied to handle missing data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination.

Results

Data for 1487 and 2329 participants contributing 3140 and 5246 person-years follow-up were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Thirteen candidate predictors were included in the model. Epilepsy and either cytopenia or elevated liver enzymes during the first 6 months of shared-care LEF prescription were strong predictors of drug discontinuation with a hazard ratio of 4.39 (95% CI 1.74, 11.06) and 3.06 (2.15, 4.35), respectively. The unadjusted and optimism-adjusted calibration slope in development data was 1.00 (95% CI 0.75, 1.25) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.47, 0.97), respectively. The calibration slope in validation data was 0.91 (95% CI 0.74, 1.07). The model showed prognostic separation with an optimism-adjusted Royston D statistic of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44, 1.02).

Conclusion

We have developed and externally validated an easy-to-use prognostic model that may be used to risk stratify monitoring for LEF toxicity and to make informed choices about risks when choosing treatments.

SUBMITTER: Nakafero G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258529 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe optimal method of identifying people with asthma from electronic health records in primary care is not known. The aim of this study is to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of different algorithms using clinical codes and prescription data to identify people with asthma in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).Methods684 participants registered with a general practitioner (GP) practice contributing to CPRD between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2015 were selected according to one of eight predefined potential asthma identification algorithms. A questionnaire was sent to the GPs to confirm asthma status and provide additional information to support an asthma diagnosis. Two study physicians independently reviewed and adjudicated the questionnaires and additional information to form a gold standard for asthma diagnosis. The PPV was calculated for each algorithm.Results684 questionnaires were sent, of which 494 (72%) were returned and 475 (69%) were complete and analysed. All five algorithms including a specific Read code indicating asthma or non-specific Read code accompanied by additional conditions performed well. The PPV for asthma diagnosis using only a specific asthma code was 86.4% (95% CI 77.4% to 95.4%). Extra information on asthma medication prescription (PPV 83.3%), evidence of reversibility testing (PPV 86.0%) or a combination of all three selection criteria (PPV 86.4%) did not result in a higher PPV. The algorithm using non-specific asthma codes, information on reversibility testing and respiratory medication use scored highest (PPV 90.7%, 95% CI (82.8% to 98.7%), but had a much lower identifiable population. Algorithms based on asthma symptom codes had low PPVs (43.1% to 57.8%)%).ConclusionsPeople with asthma can be accurately identified from UK primary care records using specific Read codes. The inclusion of spirometry or asthma medications in the algorithm did not clearly improve accuracy.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol for this research was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for MHRA Database Research (protocol number15_257) and the approved protocol was made available to the journal and reviewers during peer review. Generic ethical approval for observational research using the CPRD with approval from ISAC has been granted by a Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (East Midlands-Derby, REC reference number 05/MRE04/87).The results will be submitted for publication and will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:BackgroundStroke prevention guidance for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) uses evidence generated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, applicability to patient groups excluded from trials remains unknown. Real-world patient data provide an opportunity to evaluate outcomes in a trial analogous population of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) users and in patients otherwise excluded from RCTs; however, there remains uncertainty on the validity of methods and suitability of the data. Successful reference trial emulation can support the generation of evidence around treatment effects in groups excluded or underrepresented in trials. We used linked United Kingdom primary care data to investigate whether we could emulate the pivotal ARISTOTLE trial (apixaban versus warfarin) and extend the analysis to investigate the impact of warfarin time in therapeutic range (TTR) on results.Methods and findingsPatients with AF in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum) prescribed apixaban or warfarin from 1 January 2013 to 31 July 2019 were selected. ARISTOTLE eligibility criteria were applied to this population and matched to the RCT apixaban arm on baseline characteristics creating a trial-analogous apixaban cohort; this was propensity-score matched to warfarin users in the CPRD Aurum. ARISTOTLE outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by prior warfarin exposure status during 2.5 years of patient follow-up and results benchmarked against the trial results before treatment effectiveness was further evaluated based on (warfarin) TTR. The dataset comprised 8,734 apixaban users and propensity-score matched 8,734 warfarin users. Results [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval)] confirmed apixaban noninferiority for stroke or systemic embolism (SE) [CPRD 0.98 (0.82,1.19) versus trial 0.79 (0.66,0.95)] and death from any cause [CPRD 1.03 (0.93,1.14) versus trial 0.89 (0.80,0.998)] but did not indicate apixaban superiority. Absolute event rates for stroke/SE were similar for apixaban in CPRD Aurum and ARISTOTLE (1.27%/year), whereas a lower event rate was observed for warfarin (CPRD Aurum 1.29%/year, ARISTOTLE 1.60%/year). Analysis by TTR suggested similar effectiveness of apixaban compared with poorly controlled warfarin (TTR < 0.75) for stroke/SE [0.91 (0.73, 1.14)], all-cause death [0.94 (0.84, 1.06)], and superiority for major bleeding [0.74 (0.63, 0.86)]. However, when compared with well-controlled warfarin (TTR ≥ 0.75), apixaban was associated with an increased hazard for all-cause death [1.20 (1.04, 1.37)], and there was no significant benefit for major bleeding [1.08 (0.90, 1.30)]. The main limitation of the study's methodology are the risk of residual confounding, channelling bias and attrition bias in the warfarin arm, and selection bias and misclassification in the analysis by TTR.ConclusionsAnalysis of noninterventional data generated results demonstrating noninferiority of apixaban versus warfarin consistent with prespecified benchmarking criteria. Unlike in ARISTOTLE, superiority of apixaban versus warfarin was not seen, possible due to the lower proportion of Asian patients and higher proportion of patients with well-controlled warfarin compared to ARISTOTLE. This methodological template can be used to investigate treatment effects of oral anticoagulants in patient groups excluded from or underrepresented in trials and provides a framework that can be adapted to investigate treatment effects for other conditions.