Michael Fralick1,2,3, Aaron S Kesselheim1,2, Jerry Avorn1,2, Sebastian Schneeweiss1. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: Manufacturers of US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drugs often apply for additional indications based on randomized clinical trials. Real-world database analyses on a medication's use and outcomes in routine settings of care might help to inform decision making regarding such supplemental indications. Objective: To examine whether longitudinal data from a health care database can support the results of a randomized clinical trial that led to a supplemental indication for telmisartan. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of patients newly prescribed telmisartan or ramipril used insurance claims data from a nationwide health care database from January 1, 2003, through September 30, 2009, to compare patient outcomes. This study replicated the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End-point Trial (ONTARGET) and used propensity score matching to balance 74 patient characteristics. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2017, to May 24, 2017. Exposures: Telmisartan use vs ramipril use. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Results: Of the 640 951 patients included in the study, 48 053 were newly prescribed ramipril (mean [SD] age, 68.29 [9.52] years; 31 940 male [66.5%]) and 4665 were newly prescribed telmisartan (mean [SD] age, 69.43 [9.60] years; 2413 male [51.7%]). After propensity score matching, a total of 4665 patients were newly prescribed telmisartan (mean [SD] age, 69.43 [9.60] years; 2413 [51.7%]), and 4665 patients were newly prescribed ramipril (mean [SD] age, 69.36 [9.67] years; 2343 male [50.2%]). As seen in ONTARGET, the composite risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for congestive heart failure was similar for the 2 medications (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.1). In addition, the study found that telmisartan was associated with a substantially decreased risk of angioedema (hazard ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.03-0.56) compared with ramipril. Conclusions and Relevance: Real-world data analyses of patients receiving routine care provided findings similar to those found in the randomized clinical trial that established telmisartan's supplemental indication. In certain situations, database studies may support supplemental applications for effectiveness for already approved medications.
Importance: Manufacturers of US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drugs often apply for additional indications based on randomized clinical trials. Real-world database analyses on a medication's use and outcomes in routine settings of care might help to inform decision making regarding such supplemental indications. Objective: To examine whether longitudinal data from a health care database can support the results of a randomized clinical trial that led to a supplemental indication for telmisartan. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of patients newly prescribed telmisartan or ramipril used insurance claims data from a nationwide health care database from January 1, 2003, through September 30, 2009, to compare patient outcomes. This study replicated the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End-point Trial (ONTARGET) and used propensity score matching to balance 74 patient characteristics. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2017, to May 24, 2017. Exposures: Telmisartan use vs ramipril use. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Results: Of the 640 951 patients included in the study, 48 053 were newly prescribed ramipril (mean [SD] age, 68.29 [9.52] years; 31 940 male [66.5%]) and 4665 were newly prescribed telmisartan (mean [SD] age, 69.43 [9.60] years; 2413 male [51.7%]). After propensity score matching, a total of 4665 patients were newly prescribed telmisartan (mean [SD] age, 69.43 [9.60] years; 2413 [51.7%]), and 4665 patients were newly prescribed ramipril (mean [SD] age, 69.36 [9.67] years; 2343 male [50.2%]). As seen in ONTARGET, the composite risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for congestive heart failure was similar for the 2 medications (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.1). In addition, the study found that telmisartan was associated with a substantially decreased risk of angioedema (hazard ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.03-0.56) compared with ramipril. Conclusions and Relevance: Real-world data analyses of patients receiving routine care provided findings similar to those found in the randomized clinical trial that established telmisartan's supplemental indication. In certain situations, database studies may support supplemental applications for effectiveness for already approved medications.
Authors: Sebastian Schneeweiss; Amanda R Patrick; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart; Jerry Avorn; Malcolm Maclure; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Rachel E Sherman; Steven A Anderson; Gerald J Dal Pan; Gerry W Gray; Thomas Gross; Nina L Hunter; Lisa LaVange; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Peter W Marks; Melissa A Robb; Jeffrey Shuren; Robert Temple; Janet Woodcock; Lilly Q Yue; Robert M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip S Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jerry Avorn; Michael A Fischer; Helen Mogun; Daniel H Solomon; M Alan Brookhart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Niteesh K Choudhry; Aaron S Kesselheim; Jennifer M Polinski; David Hutchins; Olga S Matlin; Troyen A Brennan; Jerry Avorn; William H Shrank Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan; David Martin; Jessica M Franklin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Ajinkya Pawar; Jessica M Franklin; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Anouk Déruaz-Luyet; Kimberly G Brodovicz; Steven Sambevski; Lily G Bessette; Adrian J Santiago Ortiz; Martin Kulldorff; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gregory E Simon; Richard Platt; Jonathan H Watanabe; Andrew B Bindman; Alex John London; Michael Horberg; Adrian Hernandez; Robert M Califf Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 6.903