Wayne A. Ray's research while affiliated with Vanderbilt University and other places

Importance Diltiazem, a commonly prescribed ventricular rate–control medication for patients with atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, possibly causing overanticoagulation. Objective To compare serious bleeding risk for new users of apixaban or rivaroxaban with atrial fibrillation treated with diltiazem or metoprolol. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation who initiated apixaban or rivaroxaban use and also began treatment with diltiazem or metoprolol between January 1, 2012, and November 29, 2020. Patients were followed up to 365 days through November 30, 2020. Data were analyzed from August 2023 to February 2024. Exposures Diltiazem and metoprolol. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding-related hospitalization and death with recent evidence of bleeding. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, major ischemic or hemorrhagic events (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial or fatal extracranial bleeding, or death with recent evidence of bleeding), and death without recent evidence of bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) were adjusted for covariate differences with overlap weighting. Results The study included 204 155 US Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 53 275 received diltiazem and 150 880 received metoprolol. Study patients (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [7.0] years; 52.7% female) had 90 927 person-years (PY) of follow-up (median, 120 [IQR, 59-281] days). Patients receiving diltiazem treatment had increased risk for the primary outcome (RD, 10.6 [95% CI, 7.0-14.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.13-1.29]) and its components of bleeding-related hospitalization (RD, 8.2 [95% CI, 5.1-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.13-1.31]) and death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.6-4.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.34]) compared with patients receiving metoprolol. Risk for the primary outcome with initial diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d (RD, 15.1 [95% CI, 10.2-20.1] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.19-1.39]) was greater than that for lower doses (RD, 6.7 [95% CI, 2.0-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]). For doses exceeding 120 mg/d, the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events was increased (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.27]). Neither dose group had significant changes in the risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or death without recent evidence of bleeding. When patients receiving high- and low-dose diltiazem treatment were directly compared, the HR for the primary outcome was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance In Medicare patients with atrial fibrillation receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, diltiazem was associated with greater risk of serious bleeding than metoprolol, particularly for diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d.

Importance Dose-related effects of antipsychotic medications may increase mortality in children and young adults. Objective To compare mortality for patients aged 5 to 24 years beginning treatment with antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a US national retrospective cohort study of Medicaid patients with no severe somatic illness or schizophrenia or related psychoses who initiated study medication treatment. Study data were analyzed from November 2022 to September 2023. Exposures Current use of second-generation antipsychotic agents in daily doses of less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents or greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents vs that for control medications (α agonists, atomoxetine, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers). Main Outcome and Measures Total mortality, classified by underlying cause of death. Rate differences (RDs) and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for potential confounders with propensity score–based overlap weights. Results The 2 067 507 patients (mean [SD] age, 13.1 [5.3] years; 1 060 194 male [51.3%]) beginning study medication treatment filled 21 749 825 prescriptions during follow-up with 5 415 054 for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2 813 796 for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13 520 975 for control medications. Mortality was not associated with antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less (RD, 3.3; 95% CI, −5.1 to 11.7 per 100 000 person-years; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32) but was associated with doses greater than 100 mg (RD, 22.4; 95% CI, 6.6-38.2; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70). For higher doses, antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (RD, 8.3; 95% CI, 0-16.6; HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (RD, 12.3; 95% CI, 2.4-22.2; HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22) but was not associated with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths. Mortality for children aged 5 to 17 years was not significantly associated with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18 to 24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (RD, 127.5; 95% CI, 44.8-210.2; HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of more than 2 million children and young adults without severe somatic disease or diagnosed psychosis, antipsychotic treatment in doses of 100 mg or less of chlorpromazine equivalents or in children aged 5 to 17 years was not associated with increased risk of death. For doses greater than 100 mg, young adults aged 18 to 24 years had significantly increased risk of death, with 127.5 additional deaths per 100 000 person-years.

Gabapentin is prescribed for pain and is perceived as safe generally. However, gabapentin can cause respiratory depression, exacerbated by concomitant central nervous system depressants (e.g., opioids), a concern for vulnerable populations. We compared mortality rates among new users of either gabapentin or duloxetine with or without concurrent opioids in the 20% Medicare sample. We conducted a new-user design retrospective cohort study, in Medicare enrollees ages 65-89 with non-cancer chronic pain and no severe illness who filled prescriptions between 2015-2018 for gabapentin (n=233,060) or duloxetine (n=34,009). Daily opioid doses, estimated in morphine milligram equivalents (MME), were classified into none, low (0< MME< 50), and high (≥50 MME), based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. The outcomes were all-cause mortality (primary) and out-of-hospital mortality (secondary). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between gabapentin and duloxetine users. During 116,707 person-years of follow-up, 1,379 patients died. All-cause mortality rate in gabapentin users was 12.16/1,000 person-years versus 9.94/1,000 in duloxetine users. Risks were similar for users with no concurrent opioids (aHR=1.03, 95%CI: 0.80, 1.31) or low-dose daily opioids (aHR=1.06, 95%CI: 0.63, 1.76). However, gabapentin users receiving concurrent high-dose daily opioids had an increased rate of all-cause mortality compared to duloxetine users on high-dose opioids (aHR=2.03, 95%CI: 1.19, 3.46). Out-of-hospital mortality yielded similar results. In this retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, concurrent use of high-dose opioids and gabapentin was associated with a higher all-cause mortality risk than that for concurrent use of high-dose opioids and duloxetine.

Background Chronic pain affects 30% of all patients in developed countries, accounting for up to 35% of prescriptions in acute care settings. Non-opioid pain medications are widely utilized for treatment of non-cancer chronic pain. Among these, pregabalin is a commonly prescribed anticonvulsant, which works by antagonizing L-type calcium channels, decreasing the release of neurotransmitters [1] . Pregabalin use has been associated with reports of congestive heart failure (CHF), including peripheral and pulmonary edema [2-4] . However, the relationship between CHF incidence and pregabalin use among patients at the highest risk of adverse reactions (i.e., senior patients with various co-morbidities) remains unclear. Objectives To compare incident CHF among new users of pregabalin versus gabapentin (the active comparator) in Medicare beneficiaries treated for non-cancer chronic pain. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-89 years old with chronic non-cancer pain, without prior history of CHF. We included patients who were newly prescribed users of pregabalin or gabapentin were followed up between 2015-2018. The outcome was incident CHF, ascertained by hospital admissions or emergency room visits with ICD 9 and or 10 codes in the first position codes. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to account for differences between pregabalin and gabapentin users in time-dependent analysis (i.e., Cox proportional-hazards regressions). Covariates used in the propensity scoring were selected based on prior knowledge and literature review, and included categories such as concurrent baseline cardiovascular, neurologic, pain, and psychiatric diagnoses and corresponding medications including opioids and antipsychotics. Non-diagnostic covariates were included, as well as demographics, socioeconomic status, and indicators/metrics of health care utilization. Results This study included 17,756 new users of pregabalin and 221,053 new users of gabapentin. The cohort was predominantly female gender (66.7%), and non-Hispanic White (79.9%), with a median age of 73 (IQR: 69-78) years. The most common diagnostic indications for pregabalin and gabapentin were musculoskeletal and back pain. Prior to inverse probability weighting, pregabalin vs gabapentin users had higher daily short-acting opioid morphine equivalent doses (median; 18.0 vs 8.9 mg/d), higher use of coxibs (8.6% vs 4.9%), and higher prevalence of diabetic neuropathy (15.9% vs 11.3%) and fibromyalgia (19.9% vs 13.2%). After propensity score weighting, none of the covariates had a standardized difference>0.10. During 110,439 person-years of follow-up, 1,428 patients developed new CHF. The outcome rate for CHF incidence was 18.67 per 1000 person-years for pregabalin vs 12.57 per 1000-person years for gabapentin (adjusted HR 1.48 [95% CI, 1.20-1.81]). Conclusion In this retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-89 years with chronic non-cancer pain, new users of pregabalin had higher rates of incident CHF hospitalizations or emergency room visits compared to new users of gabapentin. References [1]Bockbrader HN, Wesche D, Miller R, Chapel S, Janiczek N, Burger P. A comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pregabalin and gabapentin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010 Oct;49(10):661-9. [2]Murphy N, Mockler M, Ryder M, Ledwidge M, McDonald K. Decompensation of chronic heart failure associated with pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain. J Card Fail. 2007 Apr;13(3):227-9. [3]Page RL 2nd, Cantu M, Lindenfeld J, Hergott LJ, Lowes BD. Possible heart failure exacerbation associated with pregabalin: case discussion and literature review. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2008 Sep;9(9):922-5. [4]Zaccara G, Gangemi P, Perucca P, Specchio L. The adverse event profile of pregabalin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Epilepsia. 2011 Apr;52(4):826-36 Acknowledgements NIL. Disclosure of Interests None Declared.

Background: Amiodarone, the most effective antiarrhythmic drug in atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, thus possibly increasing anticoagulant-related risk for bleeding. Objective: For patients receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, to compare risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations during treatment with amiodarone versus flecainide or sotalol, antiarrhythmic drugs that do not inhibit these anticoagulants' elimination. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. Patients: Patients with atrial fibrillation began anticoagulant use between 1 January 2012 and 30 November 2018 and subsequently initiated treatment with study antiarrhythmic drugs. Measurements: Time to event for bleeding-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death with or without recent (past 30 days) evidence of bleeding (secondary outcomes), adjusted with propensity score overlap weighting. Results: There were 91 590 patients (mean age, 76.3 years; 52.5% female) initiating use of study anticoagulants and antiarrhythmic drugs, 54 977 with amiodarone and 36 613 with flecainide or sotalol. Risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations increased with amiodarone use (rate difference [RD], 17.5 events [95% CI, 12.0 to 23.0 events] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [CI, 1.27 to 1.63]). Incidence of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism did not increase (RD, -2.1 events [CI, -4.7 to 0.4 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.80 [CI, 0.62 to 1.03]). The risk for death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 9.1 events [CI, 5.8 to 12.3 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.66 [CI, 1.35 to 2.03]) was greater than that for other deaths (RD, 5.6 events [CI, 0.5 to 10.6 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.00 to 1.31]) (HR comparison: P = 0.003). The increased incidence of bleeding-related hospitalizations for rivaroxaban (RD, 28.0 events [CI, 18.4 to 37.6 events] per 1000 person-years) was greater than that for apixaban (RD, 9.1 events [CI, 2.8 to 15.3 events] per 1000 person-years) (P = 0.001). Limitation: Possible residual confounding. Conclusion: In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation treated with amiodarone during apixaban or rivaroxaban use had greater risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations than those treated with flecainide or sotalol. Primary funding source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Objective: Duloxetine is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor prescribed for musculoskeletal and other forms of chronic pain. Its dual pharmacologic properties have the potential to either raise or lower cardiovascular risk: adrenergic activity may increase the risk for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke, but antiplatelet activity may decrease risk. Gabapentin is another nonopioid medication used to treat pain, which is not thought to have adrenergic/antiplatelet effects. With the current emphasis on the use of nonopioid medications to treat patients with chronic pain, assessing cardiovascular risks associated with these medications among high-risk patients is important. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among a 20% sample of Medicare enrollees, aged 65 to 89, with chronic pain who were new users between 2015 and 2018 of either duloxetine (n = 34,009) or gabapentin (n = 233,060). We excluded individuals with cancer or other life-threatening conditions at study drug initiation. The primary outcome was a composite of AMI, stroke, and out-of-hospital mortality. We adjusted for comorbidity differences with time-dependent inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: During 115,668 person-years of follow-up, 2361 patients had the composite primary outcome; the rate among new users of duloxetine was 16.7/1000 person-years compared with new users of gabapentin (21.1/1000 person-years), adjusted hazard ratio = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.16). Results were similar for the individual components of the composite outcome as well as in analyses stratified by demographic and clinical characteristics. Discussion: In summary, cohort Medicare patients with non-cancer pain beginning treatment with duloxetine had rates of AMI, stroke, and out-of-hospital mortality comparable to those who initiated gabapentin.

Importance The comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban, the most frequently prescribed oral anticoagulants for ischemic stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation, is uncertain. Objective To compare major ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study using computerized enrollment and claims files for US Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older. Between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2018, a total of 581 451 patients with atrial fibrillation began rivaroxaban or apixaban treatment and were followed up for 4 years, through November 30, 2018. Exposures Rivaroxaban (n = 227 572) and apixaban (n = 353 879), either standard or reduced dose. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of major ischemic (stroke/systemic embolism) and hemorrhagic (intracerebral hemorrhage/other intracranial bleeding/fatal extracranial bleeding) events. Secondary outcomes were nonfatal extracranial bleeding and total mortality (fatal ischemic/hemorrhagic event or other death during follow-up). Rates, hazard ratios (HRs), and rate differences (RDs) were adjusted for baseline differences in comorbidity with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Study patients (mean age, 77.0 years; 291 966 [50.2%] women; 134 393 [23.1%] receiving reduced dose) had 474 605 person-years of follow-up (median [IQR] of 174 [62-397] days). The adjusted primary outcome rate for rivaroxaban was 16.1 per 1000 person-years vs 13.4 per 1000 person-years for apixaban (RD, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.9-3.5]; HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.12-1.24]). The rivaroxaban group had increased risk for both major ischemic events (8.6 vs 7.6 per 1000 person-years; RD, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.5-1.7]; HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.04-1.20]) and hemorrhagic events (7.5 vs 5.9 per 1000 person-years; RD, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.1]; HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.16-1.36]), including fatal extracranial bleeding (1.4 vs 1.0 per 1000 person-years; RD, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.7]; HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.18-1.70]). Patients receiving rivaroxaban had increased risk of nonfatal extracranial bleeding (39.7 vs 18.5 per 1000 person-years; RD, 21.1 [95% CI, 20.0-22.3]; HR, 2.07 [95% CI, 1.99-2.15]), fatal ischemic/hemorrhagic events (4.5 vs 3.3 per 1000 person-years; RD, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.8-1.6]; HR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.21-1.48]), and total mortality (44.2 vs 41.0 per 1000 person-years; RD, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.8-4.5]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.09]). The risk of the primary outcome was increased for rivaroxaban in both those receiving the reduced dose (27.4 vs 21.0 per 1000 person-years; RD, 6.4 [95% CI, 4.1-8.7]; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.16-1.40]) and the standard dose (13.2 vs 11.4 per 1000 person-years; RD, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.0-2.6]; HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.06-1.21]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation, treatment with rivaroxaban compared with apixaban was associated with a significantly increased risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events.

Background: Benzodiazepine hypnotics and the related nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (z-drugs) are among the most frequently prescribed medications for older adults. Both can depress respiration, which could have fatal cardiorespiratory effects, particularly among patients with concurrent opioid use. Trazodone, frequently prescribed in low doses for insomnia, has minimal respiratory effects, and, consequently, may be a safer hypnotic for older patients. Thus, for patients beginning treatment with benzodiazepine hypnotics or z-drugs, we compared deaths during periods of current hypnotic use, without or with concurrent opioids, to those for comparable patients receiving trazodone in doses up to 100 mg. Methods and findings: The retrospective cohort study in the United States included 400,924 Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older without severe illness or evidence of substance use disorder initiating study hypnotic therapy from January 2014 through September 2015. Study endpoints were out-of-hospital (primary) and total mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for demographic characteristics, psychiatric and neurologic disorders, cardiovascular and renal conditions, respiratory diseases, pain-related diagnoses and medications, measures of frailty, and medical care utilization in a time-dependent propensity score-stratified analysis. Patients without concurrent opioids had 32,388 person-years of current use, 260 (8.0/1,000 person-years) out-of-hospital and 418 (12.9/1,000) total deaths for benzodiazepines; 26,497 person-years,150 (5.7/1,000) out-of-hospital and 227 (8.6/1,000) total deaths for z-drugs; and 16,177 person-years,156 (9.6/1,000) out-of-hospital and 256 (15.8/1,000) total deaths for trazodone. Out-of-hospital and total mortality for benzodiazepines (respective HRs: 0.99 [95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.22, p = 0.954] and 0.95 [0.82 to 1.14, p = 0.513] and z-drugs (HRs: 0.96 [0.76 to 1.23], p = 0.767 and 0.87 [0.72 to 1.05], p = 0.153) did not differ significantly from that for trazodone. Patients with concurrent opioids had 4,278 person-years of current use, 90 (21.0/1,000) out-of-hospital and 127 (29.7/1,000) total deaths for benzodiazepines; 3,541 person-years, 40 (11.3/1,000) out-of-hospital and 64 (18.1/1,000) total deaths for z-drugs; and 2,347 person-years, 19 (8.1/1,000) out-of-hospital and 36 (15.3/1,000) total deaths for trazodone. Out-of-hospital and total mortality for benzodiazepines (HRs: 3.02 [1.83 to 4.97], p < 0.001 and 2.21 [1.52 to 3.20], p < 0.001) and z-drugs (HRs: 1.98 [1.14 to 3.44], p = 0.015 and 1.65 [1.09 to 2.49], p = 0.018) were significantly increased relative to trazodone; findings were similar with exclusion of overdose deaths or restriction to those with cardiovascular causes. Limitations included composition of the study cohort and potential confounding by unmeasured variables. Conclusions: In US Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older without concurrent opioids who initiated treatment with benzodiazepine hypnotics, z-drugs, or low-dose trazodone, study hypnotics were not associated with mortality. With concurrent opioids, benzodiazepines and z-drugs were associated with increased out-of-hospital and total mortality. These findings indicate that the dangers of benzodiazepine-opioid coadministration go beyond the documented association with overdose death and suggest that in combination with opioids, the z-drugs may be more hazardous than previously thought.

Purpose: Hydrocodone, codeine, oxycodone, and tramadol are frequently prescribed to adolescents for moderate pain related to minor trauma or dental, surgical, or medical procedures. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between these opioids could affect their relative safety. We aimed to compare occurrence of opioid-related adverse events in adolescents without cancer or other severe conditions taking hydrocodone, codeine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 201 940 Tennessee Medicaid enrollees 12 to 17 years of age without cancer, other severe conditions, or evidence of substance abuse with 529 731 filled prescriptions for study opioids. Adverse events were defined as an emergency department visit, hospital admission, or death related to opioid use, confirmed by medical record review. Serious events had opioid-related escalation of care, hospitalization, or death. Propensity-score adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with hydrocodone as the reference category. Results: The incidence of opioid-related adverse events per 10 000 person-years of opioid exposure was 97.5 for hydrocodone (127 events/13 026 person-years), 91.2 for codeine (58/6,359), 229.7 for oxycodone (43/1,872), and 317.7 for tramadol (47/1479). The HRs for tramadol in comparison with hydrocodone for all and serious events were 2.98 (2.03-4.39) and 2.94 (1.81-4.75), respectively. Increased risk for tramadol was consistently present when the adverse events were restricted to those with neurologic-respiratory depression/other symptoms of possible overdose. Conclusion: In adolescents without cancer or other severe conditions prescribed short-acting opioids, the incidence of both all opioid-related adverse events and more serious events with opioid-related escalation of care, hospitalization, or death was consistently greater for tramadol than for hydrocodone.