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

Conclusion: Empagliflozin initiation was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ACM, HHF, CVM, and ESRD compared with initiation of DPP-4i in patients with T2D when examining routine clinical practice data from Nordic countries.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the “prediction model risk of bias assessment” criteria, and it has not been externally validated. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases. MethodsWe followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia. ResultsThe internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68. ConclusionsOur results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to detect adverse events following immunization in a population. Whether certain methods of surveillance are more precise and unbiased in generating safety signals is unclear. Here, we synthesized information from existing literature to provide an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of epidemiologic and analytical methods used in vaccine monitoring, focusing on cohort, case-control and self-controlled designs. These designs are proposed to be evaluated in the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Event Under Surveillance–for vaccines) study because of their widespread use and potential utility. Over the past decades, there have been an increasing number of epidemiological study designs used for vaccine safety surveillance. While traditional cohort and case-control study designs remain widely used, newer, novel designs such as the self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk intervals have been developed. Each study design comes with its strengths and limitations, and the most appropriate study design will depend on availability of resources, access to records, number and distribution of cases, and availability of population coverage data. Several assumptions have to be made while using the various study designs, and while the goal is to mitigate any biases, violations of these assumptions are often still present to varying degrees. In our review, we discussed some of the potential biases (i.e., selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding bias), and ways to mitigate them. While the types of epidemiological study designs are well established, a comprehensive comparison of the analytical aspects (including method evaluation and performance metrics) of these study designs are relatively less well studied. We summarized the literature, reporting on two simulation studies, which compared the detection time, empirical power, error rate and risk estimate bias across the above-mentioned study designs. While these simulation studies provided insights on the analytic performance of each of the study designs, its applicability to real-world data remains unclear. To bridge that gap, we provided the rationale of the EUMAEUS study, with a brief description of the study design; and how the use of real-world multi-database networks can provide insights into better methods evaluation and vaccine safety surveillance.

Using real-world data and past vaccination data, we conducted a large-scale experiment to quantify bias, precision and timeliness of different study designs to estimate historical background (expected) compared to post-vaccination (observed) rates of safety events for several vaccines. We used negative (not causally related) and positive control outcomes. The latter were synthetically generated true safety signals with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.5 to 4. Observed vs. expected analysis using within-database historical background rates is a sensitive but unspecific method for the identification of potential vaccine safety signals. Despite good discrimination, most analyses showed a tendency to overestimate risks, with 20%-100% type 1 error, but low (0% to 20%) type 2 error in the large databases included in our study. Efforts to improve the comparability of background and post-vaccine rates, including age-sex adjustment and anchoring background rates around a visit, reduced type 1 error and improved precision but residual systematic error persisted. Additionally, empirical calibration dramatically reduced type 1 to nominal but came at the cost of increasing type 2 error.