Search

Kristin Kostka,1,2 Talita Duarte-Salles,3 Albert Prats-Uribe,4 Anthony G Sena,5,6 Andrea Pistillo,3 Sara Khalid,4 Lana YH Lai,7 Asieh Golozar,8,9 Thamir M Alshammari,10 Dalia M Dawoud,11 Fredrik Nyberg,12 Adam B Wilcox,13,14 Alan Andryc,5 Andrew Williams,15 Anna Ostropolets,16 Carlos Areia,17 Chi Young Jung,18 Christopher A Harle,19 Christian G Reich,1,2 Clair Blacketer,5,6 Daniel R Morales,20 David A Dorr,21 Edward Burn,3,4 Elena Roel,3,22 Eng Hooi Tan,4 Evan Minty,23 Frank DeFalco,5 Gabriel de Maeztu,24 Gigi Lipori,19 Hiba Alghoul,25 Hong Zhu,26 Jason A Thomas,13 Jiang Bian,19 Jimyung Park,27 Jordi Martínez Roldán,28 Jose D Posada,29 Juan M Banda,30 Juan P Horcajada,31 Julianna Kohler,32 Karishma Shah,33 Karthik Natarajan,16,34 Kristine E Lynch,35,36 Li Liu,37 Lisa M Schilling,38 Martina Recalde,3,22 Matthew Spotnitz,14 Mengchun Gong,39 Michael E Matheny,40,41 Neus Valveny,42 Nicole G Weiskopf,21 Nigam Shah,29 Osaid Alser,43 Paula Casajust,42 Rae Woong Park,27,44 Robert Schuff,21 Sarah Seager,1 Scott L DuVall,35,36 Seng Chan You,45 Seokyoung Song,46 Sergio Fernández-Bertolín,3 Stephen Fortin,5 Tanja Magoc,19 Thomas Falconer,16 Vignesh Subbian,47 Vojtech Huser,48 Waheed-Ul-Rahman Ahmed,33,49 William Carter,38 Yin Guan,50 Yankuic Galvan,19 Xing He,19 Peter R Rijnbeek,6 George Hripcsak,16,34 Patrick B Ryan,5,16 Marc A Suchard,51 Daniel Prieto-Alhambra4 1IQVIA, Cambridge, MA, USA; 2OHDSI Center at The Roux Institute, Northeastern University, Portland, ME, USA; 3Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain; 4Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5Janssen Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, USA; 6Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 7School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 8Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY, USA; 9Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; 10College of Pharmacy, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 11National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK; 12School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 13Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 14Unviersity of Washington Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA; 15Tufts Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Boston, MA, USA; 16Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 17Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 18Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea; 19University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL, USA; 20Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; 21Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; 22Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 23O’Brien Institute for Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 24IOMED, Barcelona, Spain; 25Faculty of Medicine, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine; 26Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 27Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ajou University Graduate School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea; 28Director of Innovation and Digital Transformation, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; 29Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA; 30Georgia State University, Department of Computer Science, Atlanta, GA, USA; 31Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital del Mar, Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigació Mèdica (IMIM), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; 32United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, USA; 33Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 34New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; 35VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 36Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 37Biomedical Big Data Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 38Data Science to Patient Value Program, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; 39Institute of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 40Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 41Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 42Real-World Evidence, TFS, Barcelona, Spain; 43Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 44Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea; 45Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; 46Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu, School of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea; 47College of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 48National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; 49College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, St Luke’s Campus, Exeter, UK; 50DHC Technologies Co. Ltd., Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 51Departments of Biostatistics, Computational Medicine, and Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USACorrespondence: Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX37LD, UK, Email daniel.prietoalhambra@ndorms.ox.ac.ukPurpose: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD.Patients and Methods: We conducted a descriptive retrospective database study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub. We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services.Results: We aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed.Conclusion: We constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.Keywords: OHDSI, OMOP CDM, descriptive epidemiology, real world data, real world evidence, open science

Background: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics., Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data., Design, Setting, and Participants: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data., Results and Limitations: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent., Conclusions: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data., Patient Summary: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Developing accurate phenotype definitions is critical in obtaining reliable and reproducible background rates in safety research. This study aims to illustrate the differences in background incidence rates by comparing definitions for a given outcome., Materials and Methods: We used 16 data sources to systematically generate and evaluate outcomes for 13 adverse events and their overall background rates. We examined the effect of different modifications (inpatient setting, standardization of code set, and code set changes) to the computable phenotype on background incidence rates., Results: Rate ratios (RRs) of the incidence rates from each computable phenotype definition varied across outcomes, with inpatient restriction showing the highest variation from 1 to 11.93. Standardization of code set RRs ranges from 1 to 1.64, and code set changes range from 1 to 2.52., Discussion: The modification that has the highest impact is requiring inpatient place of service, leading to at least a 2-fold higher incidence rate in the base definition. Standardization showed almost no change when using source code variations. The strength of the effect in the inpatient restriction is highly dependent on the outcome. Changing definitions from broad to narrow showed the most variability by age/gender/database across phenotypes and less than a 2-fold increase in rate compared to the base definition., Conclusion: Characterization of outcomes across a network of databases yields insights into sensitivity and specificity trade-offs when definitions are altered. Outcomes should be thoroughly evaluated prior to use for background rates for their plausibility for use across a global network., Competing Interests: R.M., A.S., G.R., E.A.V., A.G.S., K.H., and P.B.R. are employees of Janssen Pharmaceutical Company of Johnson & Johnson and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. A.O. has received funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration. G.H. received support through a grant to Columbia University (NIH R01 LM006910). M.A.S. receives grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs within the scope of this work, and grants and contracts from the US National Institutes of Health, US Food & Drug Administration, and Janssen Research & Development outside the scope of this work. P.R.R. has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 806968. M.A.M., F.N., J.M.R.-A., F.M., T.D.-S., S.D., V.P., L.Y.H.L., and T.M.A. have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to the contents of this study., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Introduction: Vaccine safety surveillance commonly includes a serial testing approach with a sensitive method for 'signal generation' and specific method for 'signal validation.' The extent to which serial testing in real-world studies improves or hinders overall performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity remains unknown., Methods: We assessed the overall performance of serial testing using three administrative claims and one electronic health record database. We compared type I and II errors before and after empirical calibration for historical comparator, self-controlled case series (SCCS), and the serial combination of those designs against six vaccine exposure groups with 93 negative control and 279 imputed positive control outcomes., Results: The historical comparator design mostly had fewer type II errors than SCCS. SCCS had fewer type I errors than the historical comparator. Before empirical calibration, the serial combination increased specificity and decreased sensitivity. Type II errors mostly exceeded 50%. After empirical calibration, type I errors returned to nominal; sensitivity was lowest when the methods were combined., Conclusion: While serial combination produced fewer false-positive signals compared with the most specific method, it generated more false-negative signals compared with the most sensitive method. Using a historical comparator design followed by an SCCS analysis yielded decreased sensitivity in evaluating safety signals relative to a one-stage SCCS approach. While the current use of serial testing in vaccine surveillance may provide a practical paradigm for signal identification and triage, single epidemiological designs should be explored as valuable approaches to detecting signals., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Observational studies can impact patient care but must be robust and reproducible. Nonreproducibility is primarily caused by unclear reporting of design choices and analytic procedures. This study aimed to: (1) assess how the study logic described in an observational study could be interpreted by independent researchers and (2) quantify the impact of interpretations' variability on patient characteristics., Materials and Methods: Nine teams of highly qualified researchers reproduced a cohort from a study by Albogami et al. The teams were provided the clinical codes and access to the tools to create cohort definitions such that the only variable part was their logic choices. We executed teams' cohort definitions against the database and compared the number of subjects, patient overlap, and patient characteristics., Results: On average, the teams' interpretations fully aligned with the master implementation in 4 out of 10 inclusion criteria with at least 4 deviations per team. Cohorts' size varied from one-third of the master cohort size to 10 times the cohort size (2159-63 619 subjects compared to 6196 subjects). Median agreement was 9.4% (interquartile range 15.3-16.2%). The teams' cohorts significantly differed from the master implementation by at least 2 baseline characteristics, and most of the teams differed by at least 5., Conclusions: Independent research teams attempting to reproduce the study based on its free-text description alone produce different implementations that vary in the population size and composition. Sharing analytical code supported by a common data model and open-source tools allows reproducing a study unambiguously thereby preserving initial design choices., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Routinely collected healthcare data such as administrative claims and electronic health records (EHR) can complement clinical trials and spontaneous reports to detect previously unknown risks of vaccines, but uncertainty remains about the behavior of alternative epidemiologic designs to detect and declare a true risk early. Methods: Using three claims and one EHR database, we evaluate several variants of the case-control, comparative cohort, historical comparator, and self-controlled designs against historical vaccinations using real negative control outcomes (outcomes with no evidence to suggest that they could be caused by the vaccines) and simulated positive control outcomes. Results: Most methods show large type 1 error, often identifying false positive signals. The cohort method appears either positively or negatively biased, depending on the choice of comparator index date. Empirical calibration using effect-size estimates for negative control outcomes can bring type 1 error closer to nominal, often at the cost of increasing type 2 error. After calibration, the self-controlled case series (SCCS) design most rapidly detects small true effect sizes, while the historical comparator performs well for strong effects. Conclusion: When applying any method for vaccine safety surveillance we recommend considering the potential for systematic error, especially due to confounding, which for many designs appears to be substantial. Adjusting for age and sex alone is likely not sufficient to address differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the cohort method the choice of index date is important for the comparability of the groups. Analysis of negative control outcomes allows both quantification of the systematic error and, if desired, subsequent empirical calibration to restore type 1 error to its nominal value. In order to detect weaker signals, one may have to accept a higher type 1 error., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Schuemie, Arshad, Pratt, Nyberg, Alshammari, Hripcsak, Ryan, Prieto-Alhambra, Lai, Li, Fortin, Minty and Suchard.)

Background: A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity., Methods: We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status., Results: We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity., Conclusion: We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza., Methods: A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization., Results: We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%)., Conclusion: Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza., Methods: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes., Results: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza ( n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events., Conclusions: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent., Impact: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objectives: To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children and adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to compare them in secondary analyses with patients diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza in 2017-2018., Methods: International network cohort using real-world data from European primary care records (France, Germany, and Spain), South Korean claims and US claims, and hospital databases. We included children and adolescents diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020. We described baseline demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments, and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and death., Results: A total of 242 158 children and adolescents diagnosed and 9769 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 2 084 180 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were more common among those hospitalized with versus diagnosed with COVID-19. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital prevalent treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%) and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8%-7.6%), famotidine (9.0%-28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0%-21.4%), heparin (2.2%-18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8%-14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the cohort diagnosed with COVID-19, with undetectable ( n < 5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia and hypoxemia were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza., Conclusions: Despite negligible fatality, complications including hospitalization, hypoxemia, and pneumonia were more frequent in children and adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differentiate diagnoses. A wide range of medications was used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: To perform a systematic review examining the variation in methods, results, reporting and risk of bias in electronic health record (EHR)-based studies evaluating management of a common musculoskeletal disease, gout., Methods: Two reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for all EHR-based studies published by February 2019 investigating gout pharmacological treatment. Information was extracted on study design, eligibility criteria, definitions, medication usage, effectiveness and safety data, comprehensiveness of reporting (RECORD), and Cochrane risk of bias (registered PROSPERO CRD42017065195)., Results: We screened 5,603 titles/abstracts, 613 full-texts and selected 75 studies including 1.9M gout patients. Gout diagnosis was defined in 26 ways across the studies, most commonly using a single diagnostic code (n = 31, 41.3%). 48.4% did not specify a disease-free period before 'incident' diagnosis. Medication use was suboptimal and varied with disease definition while results regarding effectiveness and safety were broadly similar across studies despite variability in inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness of reporting was variable, ranging from 73% (55/75) appropriately discussing the limitations of EHR data use, to 5% (4/75) reporting on key data cleaning steps. Risk of bias was generally low., Conclusion: The wide variation in case definitions and medication-related analysis among EHR-based studies has implications for reported medication use. This is amplified by variable reporting comprehensiveness and the limited consideration of EHR-relevant biases (e.g. data adequacy) in study assessment tools. We recommend accounting for these biases and performing a sensitivity analysis on case definitions, and suggest changes to assessment tools to foster this., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and giant cell arteritis (GCA) are almost always treated with glucocorticoids (GCs), but long-term GC use is associated with diabetes mellitus (DM). The absolute incidence of this complication in this patient group remains unclear., Objective: To quantify the absolute risk of GC-induced DM in PMR and GCA from published literature., Methods: We identified literature from inception to February 2017 reporting diabetes following exposure to oral GC in patients with PMR and/or GCA without pre-existing diabetes. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarise the findings., Results: 25 eligible publications were identified. In studies of patients with GCA, mean cumulative GC dose was almost 1.5 times higher than in studies of PMR (8.2 g vs 5.6 g), with slightly longer treatment duration and longer duration of follow-up (6.4 years vs 4.4 years). The incidence proportion (cumulative incidence) of patients who developed new-onset DM was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%) for PMR and 13% (95% CI 9% to 17%) for GCA. Based on UK data on incidence rate of DM in the general population, the expected background incidence rate of DM over 4.4 years in patients with PMR and 6.4 years in patients with GCA (follow-up duration) would be 4.8% and 7.0%, respectively. Heterogeneity between studies was high (I 2 =79.1%), as there were differences in study designs, patient population, geographical locations and treatment. Little information on predictors of DM was found., Conclusion: Our meta-analysis produced plausible estimates of DM incidence in patients with PMR and GCA, but there is insufficient published data to allow precise quantification of DM risk., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objective: The need for a standardized instrument to measure the effect of glucocorticoid (GC) therapy has been well documented in the literature. The aim of the first GC Special Interest Group was to define a research agenda around the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in this area., Methods: The results of a background literature search and the preliminary results of a pilot survey and 2 qualitative studies were presented to facilitate the development of a research agenda., Results: It was agreed that there was a need for a data-driven PROM that identified both positive and negative effects of GC therapy to be used across all inflammatory indications for systemic GC use in adults. A research agenda was developed, consisting of further qualitative work to assess the effect of GC across different groups including various indications for GC use, different age groups, different dosages, and duration of treatment., Conclusion: There was agreement on the need for a PROM in this area and a research agenda was set.