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

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.

PurposeRoutinely 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 methodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionWe 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.

ObjectivePatients 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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%).ConclusionCompared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

BackgroundWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsPatients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent.ImpactThis study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.

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.

ObjectivesConcern has been raised in the rheumatology community regarding recent regulatory warnings that HCQ used in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic could cause acute psychiatric events. We aimed to study whether there is risk of incident depression, suicidal ideation or psychosis associated with HCQ as used for RA.MethodsWe performed a new-user cohort study using claims and electronic medical records from 10 sources and 3 countries (Germany, UK and USA). RA patients ≥18 years of age and initiating HCQ were compared with those initiating SSZ (active comparator) and followed up in the short (30 days) and long term (on treatment). Study outcomes included depression, suicide/suicidal ideation and hospitalization for psychosis. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate database-specific calibrated hazard ratios (HRs), with estimates pooled where I2

ObjectiveTo investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents.DesignMultinational network cohort study.SettingHospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea.Participants303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020.Main outcome measuresPrescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19.ResultsOf the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from

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.

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.

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.

Objective : To evaluate the effectiveness of empagliflozin in reducing all-cause mortality (ACM), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular mortality (CVM), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in routine clinical practice in the Nordic countries of the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) study. Methods : This noninterventional, multicountry cohort study used secondary data from four Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway). Propensity score (PS) matched (1:1) adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating empagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor) during 2014-2018 who were compared to those initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i). Cox proportional hazards regression modelling was used to assess the risk for ACM, HHF, MI, stroke, CVM, and ESRD. Meta-analyses were conducted and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from random-effects models were calculated. Results : A total of 43,695 pairs of PS-matched patients were identified. Patients initiating empagliflozin exhibited a 49% significantly lower risk of ACM (HR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.40-0.64) compared to DPP-4i. Additionally, empagliflozin was associated with a 36% significantly lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.89), a 52% significantly lower risk of CVM (HR: 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.63), and a 66% significantly lower risk of ESRD (HR: 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.77) compared to DPP-4i. No significant differences were observed in the risk of stroke and MI between patients initiating empagliflozin compared with those initiating a DPP-4i. Results were generally consistent for subgroups (with/without pre-existing CV disease or congestive heart failure) and in sensitivity analyses. 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., Competing Interests: Dorte Vistisen has received research grants from Bayer A/S, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Boehringer Ingelheim. She holds shares in Novo Nordisk A/S. Bendix Carstensen declares no conflicts of interest. Sigrun Halvorsen has received speaker fees from Sanofi, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Gisle Langslet has received consulting/lecture fees from Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim. Thomas Nyström has received unrestricted grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk and has been a national adviser of Abbot, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Leo Niskanen has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, MSD, and Astra Zeneca; research support from Novo Nordisk to the hospital; and has participated in the scientific advisory boards of Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Novo Nordisk. Paula Casajust is an employee of TFS Health Science. Giorgi Tskhvarashvili, Fabian Hoti, and Riho Klement are/were employees of IQVIA contracted by Boehringer Ingelheim to conduct the meta-analyses, interpret the results, review, and revise the manuscript. Christina Shay, Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani, Kristina Karlsdotter, Mikko Tuovinen, Anne Pernille Ofstad, and Maria Lajer were employees of Boehringer Ingelheim at the time of manuscript development. Lisette Koeneman is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company and owns stock in Eli Lilly and Company. Emilie Toresson Grip is an employee of Quantify Research that was contracted to conduct the country-specific studies in Finland, Norway, and Sweden., (Copyright © 2024 Gisle Langslet et al.)

Aims: To evaluate effectiveness and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of empagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) in Swedish clinical practice, as part of the EMPRISE EU study (EUPAS27606, NCT03817463)., Materials and Methods: A non-interventional, cohort study using retrospectively collected data from Swedish national registries. Adults with type 2 diabetes newly initiated on empagliflozin or DPP-4i from May 2014 to December 2018 were matched 1:1 using propensity scores based on >180 covariates. Cardiovascular outcomes included hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and cardiovascular mortality (CVM), as well as their composite outcomes. Renal outcomes included end-stage renal disease (ESRD), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline to <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 and progression to micro/macroalbuminuria. HCRU outcomes were also assessed. Comparisons were done using Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression models., Results: Overall, 15,785 matched-pairs were identified, with a mean follow-up of 6.4 and 9.7 months for patients initiating empagliflozin versus DPP-4i, respectively. Empagliflozin was associated with significant reduction in rates of HHF (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.91), ACM (HR = 0.53; 0.41-0.68), HHF + ACM (HR = 0.59; 0.48-0.73), MI + stroke + ACM (HR = 0.68; 0.57-0.81), CVM (HR = 0.46; 0.29-0.73), HHF + CVM (HR = 0.61; 0.47-0.79) and MI + stroke + CVM (HR = 0.79; 0.63-0.98) versus DPP-4i. Empagliflozin also reduced the rates of ESRD (HR = 0.13; 0.03-0.57) and eGFR decline (HR = 0.83; 0.70-0.99). Regarding HCRU, empagliflozin was associated with lower risk of first inpatient stay (HR = 0.87; 0.81-0.93), and lower rate of inpatient and outpatient visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.85; 0.80-0.89 and RR = 0.96; 0.94-0.98) than DPP-4i., Conclusions: Empagliflozin treatment compared to DPP-4i reduced cardiorenal events and overall mortality, which may explain lower HCRU among empagliflozin users in Sweden., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma. Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions. Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6-8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7-6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2-18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0-6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6-22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8-20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15-30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients. Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients.[Box: see text]Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392 .

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., Competing Interests: PC is employed by the company Trial Form Support. GH receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food & Drug Administration. PR and MJS are employees of Janssen Research and Development and shareholders in Johnson & Johnson. MAS receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food & Drug Administration and contracts from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Janssen Research and Development. DPA reports grants and other from Amgen, grants, non-financial support and other from UCB Biopharma, grants from Les Laboratoires Servier, outside the submitted work; and Janssen, on behalf of IMI-funded EHDEN and EMIF consortiums, and Synapse Management Partners have supported training programmes organised by DPA’s department and open for external participants. The remaining 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 Lai, Arshad, Areia, Alshammari, Alghoul, Casajust, Li, Dawoud, Nyberg, Pratt, Hripcsak, Suchard, Prieto-Alhambra, Ryan and Schuemie.)

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., Competing Interests: DP's research group has received grants for unrelated work from Amgen, Chiesi-Taylor, and UCB Biopharma SRL; and his department has received speaker/consultancy fees from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and UCB Bioparhma SRL. Authors PR and MJS were employed by Janssen R&D. The remaining 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 © 2021 Li, Lai, Ostropolets, Arshad, Tan, Casajust, Alshammari, Duarte-Salles, Minty, Areia, Pratt, Ryan, Hripcsak, Suchard, Schuemie and Prieto-Alhambra.)

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.)

Background: Hydroxychloroquine, a drug commonly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, has received much negative publicity for adverse events associated with its authorisation for emergency use to treat patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We studied the safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, to determine the risk associated with its use in routine care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: In this multinational, retrospective study, new user cohort studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 18 years or older and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared with those initiating sulfasalazine and followed up over 30 days, with 16 severe adverse events studied. Self-controlled case series were done to further establish safety in wider populations, and included all users of hydroxychloroquine regardless of rheumatoid arthritis status or indication. Separately, severe adverse events associated with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (compared with hydroxychloroquine plus amoxicillin) were studied. Data comprised 14 sources of claims data or electronic medical records from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (HRs) according to drug use. Estimates were pooled where the I 2 value was less than 0·4., Findings: The study included 956 374 users of hydroxychloroquine, 310 350 users of sulfasalazine, 323 122 users of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, and 351 956 users of hydroxychloroquine plus amoxicillin. No excess risk of severe adverse events was identified when 30-day hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were compared. Self-controlled case series confirmed these findings. However, long-term use of hydroxychloroquine appeared to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality (calibrated HR 1·65 [95% CI 1·12-2·44]). Addition of azithromycin appeared to be associated with an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (calibrated HR 2·19 [95% CI 1·22-3·95]), chest pain or angina (1·15 [1·05-1·26]), and heart failure (1·22 [1·02-1·45])., Interpretation: Hydroxychloroquine treatment appears to have no increased risk in the short term among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but in the long term it appears to be associated with excess cardiovascular mortality. The addition of azithromycin increases the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular mortality even in the short term. We call for careful consideration of the benefit-risk trade-off when counselling those on hydroxychloroquine treatment., Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Senior Research Fellowship programme, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research and Development, IQVIA, Korea Health Industry Development Institute through the Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic of Korea, Versus Arthritis, UK Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership, Foundation Alfonso Martin Escudero, Innovation Fund Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council Open Fund Large Collaborative Grant, VINCI, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)