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

The phenomenon called lactate paradox in the regulation of muscle metabolism in indigenous highlanders during muscle exercise was examined by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy. A modified image-selected in vivo spectroscopy program was used to spatially separate the acquisition of data from the medial and lateral gastrocnemius muscles and the soleus muscle. Results showed that gastrocnemius muscle resulted larger perturbations of the metabolites, while the intracellular pH values were stable and fluctuations were explained by phospocreatine hydrolysis.

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their effectiveness relative to each other and other second-line antihyperglycemic agents is unknown, without any major ongoing head-to-head clinical trials., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the cardiovascular effectiveness of SGLT2is, GLP-1 RAs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), and clinical sulfonylureas (SUs) as second-line antihyperglycemic agents in T2DM., Methods: Across the LEGEND-T2DM (Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation Across a Network of Databases for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) network, 10 federated international data sources were included, spanning 1992 to 2021. In total, 1,492,855 patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease (CVD) on metformin monotherapy were identified who initiated 1 of 4 second-line agents (SGLT2is, GLP-1 RAs, DPP4is, or SUs). Large-scale propensity score models were used to conduct an active-comparator target trial emulation for pairwise comparisons. After evaluating empirical equipoise and population generalizability, on-treatment Cox proportional hazards models were fit for 3-point MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and death) and 4-point MACE (3-point MACE plus heart failure hospitalization) risk and HR estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: Over 5.2 million patient-years of follow-up and 489 million patient-days of time at risk, patients experienced 25,982 3-point MACE and 41,447 4-point MACE. SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs were associated with lower 3-point MACE risk than DPP4is (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.79-1.00] and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.70-0.98]) and SUs (HR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.65-0.89] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58-0.88]). DPP4is were associated with lower 3-point MACE risk than SUs (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95). The pattern for 3-point MACE was also observed for the 4-point MACE outcome. There were no significant differences between SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs for 3-point or 4-point MACE (HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.96-1.17] and 1.05 [95% CI: 0.97-1.13])., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and CVD, comparable cardiovascular risk reduction was found with SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs, with both agents more effective than DPP4is, which in turn were more effective than SUs. These findings suggest that the use of SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs should be prioritized as second-line agents in those with established CVD., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was partially funded through National Institutes of Health grants R01 HL167858, K23 HL153775, R01 LM006910, R01 HG006139, and R01 HL169954 and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs under the research priority to “Put VA Data to Work for Veterans” (VA ORD 22-D4V). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the protocol; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Khera is an associate editor at JAMA; and has received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (awards R01 HL167858 and K23 HL153775) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (award 2022060); has received research support, through Yale University, from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and BridgeBio; is a coinventor of U.S. provisional patent applications WO2023230345A1, US20220336048A1, 63/346,610, 63/428,569, 63/484,426, 63/508,315, 63/580,137, 63/606,203, 63/619,241, and 63/562,335, unrelated to the present work; and is a cofounder of Evidence2Health and Ensight-AI, precision health platforms to improve evidence-based cardiovascular care and cardiovascular diagnostics. Dr DuVall has received grants from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Biodesix, Celgene, Cerner Enviza, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis International, and Parexel International through the University of Utah or the Western Institute for Veteran Research (outside the submitted work). Dr Man has received support from the C.W. Maplethorpe Fellowship, the National Institute of Health Research, European Commission Framework Horizon 2020, the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, and the Innovation and Technology Commission of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region Government outside the submitted work). Dr Morales is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Fellowship (214588/Z/18/Z). In the past 3 years, Dr Krumholz has received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Reality Labs, Tesseract/4Catalyst, F-Prime, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, the Arnold and Porter Law Firm, and the Martin/Baughman Law Firm; is a cofounder of Refactor Health, HugoHealth, and Ensight-AI; and is associated with contracts, through Yale New Haven Hospital, from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and, through Yale University, from Johnson & Johnson. Dr You is chief technology officer of PHI Digital Healthcare. Dr Ross has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program (grant U01 FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant R01 HS022882), and from Arnold Ventures; has received research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology and from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (grants R01 HS025164 and R01 HL144644); and was an expert witness at the request of the relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled September 2022. Dr Thangaraj is a coinventor on provisional patent 63/606,203, unrelated to the present work, and is funded by grant 5T32 HL155000-03. Ms Blacketer, Dr Ostropolets, and Dr Ryan are employees of Johnson & Johnson. Dr Schuemie is an employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To characterize the incidence of kidney failure associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF exposure; and compare the risk of kidney failure in patients treated with ranibizumab, aflibercept, or bevacizumab., Design: Retrospective cohort study across 12 databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) network., Subjects: Subjects aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 3 monthly intravitreal anti-VEGF medications for a blinding disease (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, exudative age-related macular degeneration, or retinal vein occlusion)., Methods: The standardized incidence proportions and rates of kidney failure while on treatment with anti-VEGF were calculated. For each comparison (e.g., aflibercept versus ranibizumab), patients from each group were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of kidney failure while on treatment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to combine each database's hazard ratio (HR) estimate into a single network-wide estimate., Main Outcome Measures: Incidence of kidney failure while on anti-VEGF treatment, and time from cohort entry to kidney failure., Results: Of the 6.1 million patients with blinding diseases, 37 189 who received ranibizumab, 39 447 aflibercept, and 163 611 bevacizumab were included; the total treatment exposure time was 161 724 person-years. The average standardized incidence proportion of kidney failure was 678 per 100 000 persons (range, 0-2389), and incidence rate 742 per 100 000 person-years (range, 0-2661). The meta-analysis HR of kidney failure comparing aflibercept with ranibizumab was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.47; P = 0.45), ranibizumab with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.68-1.32; P = 0.62), and aflibercept with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.65-1.39; P = 0.60)., Conclusions: There was no substantially different relative risk of kidney failure between those who received ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or aflibercept. Practicing ophthalmologists and nephrologists should be aware of the risk of kidney failure among patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF medications and that there is little empirical evidence to preferentially choose among the specific intravitreal anti-VEGF agents., Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current hemovigilance methods generally rely on survey data or administrative claims data utilizing billing and revenue codes, each of which has limitations. We used electronic health records (EHR) linked to blood bank data to comprehensively characterize red blood cell (RBC) utilization patterns and trends in three healthcare systems participating in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) initiative., Methods: We used Information Standard for Blood and Transplant (ISBT) 128 codes linked to EHR from three healthcare systems data sources to identify and quantify RBC-transfused individuals, RBC transfusion episodes, transfused RBC units, and processing methods per year during 2012-2018., Results: There were 577,822 RBC units transfused among 112,705 patients comprising 345,373 transfusion episodes between 2012 and 2018. Utilization in terms of RBC units and patients increased slightly in one and decreased slightly in the other two healthcare facilities. About 90% of RBC-transfused patients had 1 (~46%) or 2-5 (~42%)transfusion episodes in 2018. Among the small proportion of patients with ≥12 transfusion episodes per year, approximately 60% of episodes included only one RBC unit. All facilities used leukocyte-reduced RBCs during the study period whereas irradiated RBC utilization patterns differed across facilities., Discussion: ISBT 128 codes and EHRs were used to observe patterns of RBC transfusion and modification methods at the unit level and patient level in three healthcare systems participating in the BEST initiative. This study shows that the ISBT 128 coding system in an EHR environment provides a feasible source for hemovigilance activities., (© 2024 AABB. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

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: To introduce 2 R-packages that facilitate conducting health economics research on OMOP-based data networks, aiming to standardize and improve the reproducibility, transparency, and transferability of health economic models., Materials and Methods: We developed the software tools and demonstrated their utility by replicating a UK-based heart failure data analysis across 5 different international databases from Estonia, Spain, Serbia, and the United States., Results: We examined treatment trajectories of 47 163 patients. The overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for telemonitoring relative to standard of care was 57 472 €/QALY. Country-specific ICERs were 60 312 €/QALY in Estonia, 58 096 €/QALY in Spain, 40 372 €/QALY in Serbia, and 90 893 €/QALY in the US, which surpassed the established willingness-to-pay thresholds., Discussion: Currently, the cost-effectiveness analysis lacks standard tools, is performed in ad-hoc manner, and relies heavily on published information that might not be specific for local circumstances. Published results often exhibit a narrow focus, central to a single site, and provide only partial decision criteria, limiting their generalizability and comprehensive utility., Conclusion: We created 2 R-packages to pioneer cost-effectiveness analysis in OMOP CDM data networks. The first manages state definitions and database interaction, while the second focuses on Markov model learning and profile synthesis. We demonstrated their utility in a multisite heart failure study, comparing telemonitoring and standard care, finding telemonitoring not cost-effective., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Background: Predictive models show promise in healthcare, but their successful deployment is challenging due to limited generalizability. Current external validation often focuses on model performance with restricted feature use from the original training data, lacking insights into their suitability at external sites. Our study introduces an innovative methodology for evaluating features during both the development phase and the validation, focusing on creating and validating predictive models for post-surgery patient outcomes with improved generalizability., Methods: Electronic health records (EHRs) from 4 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Finland, and Korea) were mapped to the OMOP Common Data Model (CDM), 2008-2019. Machine learning (ML) models were developed to predict post-surgery prolonged opioid use (POU) risks using data collected 6 months before surgery. Both local and cross-site feature selection methods were applied in the development and external validation datasets. Models were developed using Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) tools and validated on separate patient cohorts., Results: Model development included 41 929 patients, 14.6% with POU. The external validation included 31 932 (UK), 23 100 (US), 7295 (Korea), and 3934 (Finland) patients with POU of 44.2%, 22.0%, 15.8%, and 21.8%, respectively. The top-performing model, Lasso logistic regression, achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.75 during local validation and 0.69 (SD = 0.02) (averaged) in external validation. Models trained with cross-site feature selection significantly outperformed those using only features from the development site through external validation (P < .05)., Conclusions: Using EHRs across four countries mapped to the OMOP CDM, we developed generalizable predictive models for POU. Our approach demonstrates the significant impact of cross-site feature selection in improving model performance, underscoring the importance of incorporating diverse feature sets from various clinical settings to enhance the generalizability and utility of predictive healthcare models., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)