Search

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates regularization variants in logistic regression (L1, L2, ElasticNet, Adaptive L1, Adaptive ElasticNet, Broken adaptive ridge [BAR], and Iterative hard thresholding [IHT]) for discrimination and calibration performance, focusing on both internal and external validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We use data from 5 US claims and electronic health record databases and develop models for various outcomes in a major depressive disorder patient population. We externally validate all models in the other databases. We use a train-test split of 75%/25% and evaluate performance with discrimination and calibration. Statistical analysis for difference in performance uses Friedmans test and critical difference diagrams. RESULTS: Of the 840 models we develop, L1 and ElasticNet emerge as superior in both internal and external discrimination, with a notable AUC difference. BAR and IHT show the best internal calibration, without a clear external calibration leader. ElasticNet typically has larger model sizes than L1. Methods like IHT and BAR, while slightly less discriminative, significantly reduce model complexity. CONCLUSION: L1 and ElasticNet offer the best discriminative performance in logistic regression for healthcare predictions, maintaining robustness across validations. For simpler, more interpretable models, L0-based methods (IHT and BAR) are advantageous, providing greater parsimony and calibration with fewer features. This study aids in selecting suitable regularization techniques for healthcare prediction models, balancing performance, complexity, and interpretability.

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.

Abstract Background A prediction model can be a useful tool to quantify the risk of a patient developing dementia in the next years and take risk-factor-targeted intervention. Numerous dementia prediction models have been developed, but few have been externally validated, likely limiting their clinical uptake. In our previous work, we had limited success in externally validating some of these existing models due to inadequate reporting. As a result, we are compelled to develop and externally validate novel models to predict dementia in the general population across a network of observational databases. We assess regularization methods to obtain parsimonious models that are of lower complexity and easier to implement. Methods Logistic regression models were developed across a network of five observational databases with electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data to predict 5-year dementia risk in persons aged 55–84. The regularization methods L1 and Broken Adaptive Ridge (BAR) as well as three candidate predictor sets to optimize prediction performance were assessed. The predictor sets include a baseline set using only age and sex, a full set including all available candidate predictors, and a phenotype set which includes a limited number of clinically relevant predictors. Results BAR can be used for variable selection, outperforming L1 when a parsimonious model is desired. Adding candidate predictors for disease diagnosis and drug exposure generally improves the performance of baseline models using only age and sex. While a model trained on German EHR data saw an increase in AUROC from 0.74 to 0.83 with additional predictors, a model trained on US EHR data showed only minimal improvement from 0.79 to 0.81 AUROC. Nevertheless, the latter model developed using BAR regularization on the clinically relevant predictor set was ultimately chosen as best performing model as it demonstrated more consistent external validation performance and improved calibration. Conclusions We developed and externally validated patient-level models to predict dementia. Our results show that although dementia prediction is highly driven by demographic age, adding predictors based on condition diagnoses and drug exposures further improves prediction performance. BAR regularization outperforms L1 regularization to yield the most parsimonious yet still well-performing prediction model for dementia.

BackgroundAdverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population.MethodsA multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases.FindingsSubstantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism.InterpretationOur findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term.FundingNone.

Background There is a lack of knowledge on how patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are globally treated in the real world, especially with regard to the initial pharmacological treatment of newly diagnosed patients and the different treatment trajectories. This knowledge is important to monitor and improve clinical practice.Methods This retrospective cohort study aims to characterise treatments using data from four claims (drug dispensing) and four electronic health record (EHR; drug prescriptions) databases across six countries and three continents, encompassing 1.3 million patients with asthma or COPD. We analysed treatment trajectories at drug class level from first diagnosis and visualised these in sunburst plots.Results In four countries (USA, UK, Spain and the Netherlands), most adults with asthma initiate treatment with short-acting ß2 agonists monotherapy (20.8%–47.4% of first-line treatments). For COPD, the most frequent first-line treatment varies by country. The largest percentages of untreated patients (for asthma and COPD) were found in claims databases (14.5%–33.2% for asthma and 27.0%–52.2% for COPD) from the USA as compared with EHR databases (6.9%–15.2% for asthma and 4.4%–17.5% for COPD) from European countries. The treatment trajectories showed step-up as well as step-down in treatments.Conclusion Real-world data from claims and EHRs indicate that first-line treatments of asthma and COPD vary widely across countries. We found evidence of a stepwise approach in the pharmacological treatment of asthma and COPD, suggesting that treatments may be tailored to patients’ needs.

Vincent Lo Re III,1,2,* Noelle M Cocoros,3,4,* Rebecca A Hubbard,2 Sarah K Dutcher,5 Craig W Newcomb,2 John G Connolly,3,4 Silvia Perez-Vilar,5 Dena M Carbonari,2 Maria E Kempner,3,4 José J Hernández-Muñoz,5 Andrew B Petrone,3,4 Allyson M Pishko,6 Meighan E Rogers Driscoll,3,4 James T Brash,7 Sean Burnett,8,9 Catherine Cohet,10 Matthew Dahl,8,11 Terese A DeFor,12 Antonella Delmestri,13 Djeneba Audrey Djibo,14 Talita Duarte-Salles,15,16 Laura B Harrington,17 Melissa Kampman,18 Jennifer L Kuntz,19 Xavier Kurz,10 Núria Mercadé-Besora,15 Pamala A Pawloski,12 Peter R Rijnbeek,16 Sarah Seager,7 Claudia A Steiner,20,21 Katia Verhamme,16 Fangyun Wu,8,22 Yunping Zhou,23 Edward Burn,13 J Michael Paterson,8,22,* Daniel Prieto-Alhambra13,16,* 1Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 4Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, MA, USA; 5Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA; 6Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 7IQVIA, Real World Solutions, Brighton, UK; 8Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 9Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 10Data Analytics and Methods Task Force, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands; 11Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; 12HealthPartners Institute, Bloomington, MN, USA; 13Pharmaco- and Device Epidemiology, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 14CVS Health, Blue Bell, PA, USA; 15Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain; 16Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; 17Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA; 18Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 19Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA; 20Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Aurora, CO, USA; 21Colorado Permanente Medical Group, Denver, CO, USA; 22ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 23Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., Louisville, KY, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Vincent Lo Re III, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 836 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6021, USA, Fax +1 215 573 5315, Email vincentl@pennmedicine.upenn.eduPurpose: Few studies have examined how the absolute risk of thromboembolism with COVID-19 has evolved over time across different countries. Researchers from the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration established a collaboration to evaluate the absolute risk of arterial (ATE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the 90 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 in the ambulatory (eg, outpatient, emergency department, nursing facility) setting from seven countries across North America (Canada, US) and Europe (England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain) within periods before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability.Patients and Methods: We conducted cohort studies of patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting from the seven specified countries. Patients were followed for 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The primary outcomes were ATE and VTE over 90 days from diagnosis date. We measured country-level estimates of 90-day absolute risk (with 95% confidence intervals) of ATE and VTE.Results: The seven cohorts included 1,061,565 patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting before COVID-19 vaccines were available (through November 2020). The 90-day absolute risk of ATE during this period ranged from 0.11% (0.09– 0.13%) in Canada to 1.01% (0.97– 1.05%) in the US, and the 90-day absolute risk of VTE ranged from 0.23% (0.21– 0.26%) in Canada to 0.84% (0.80– 0.89%) in England. The seven cohorts included 3,544,062 patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (beginning December 2020). The 90-day absolute risk of ATE during this period ranged from 0.06% (0.06– 0.07%) in England to 1.04% (1.01– 1.06%) in the US, and the 90-day absolute risk of VTE ranged from 0.25% (0.24– 0.26%) in England to 1.02% (0.99– 1.04%) in the US.Conclusion: There was heterogeneity by country in 90-day absolute risk of ATE and VTE after ambulatory COVID-19 diagnosis both before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability.Plain Language Summary: Cohort studies of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in both the ambulatory and hospital settings have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 infection promotes hypercoagulability that could lead to arterial or venous thromboembolism. However, few studies have examined how the risk of thromboembolism with COVID-19 has evolved over time across different countries. A new collaboration was established among the regulatory authorities of Canada, Europe, and the US within the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities to evaluate the 90-day risk of both arterial and venous thromboembolism after initial diagnosis of COVID-19 in the ambulatory or hospital setting from seven countries across North America (Canada, US) and Europe (England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain) within periods before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability. The study found that there was variability in the risk of both arterial and venous thromboembolism by month across the countries among patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory or hospital setting. Differences in the healthcare systems, prevalence of comorbidities in the study cohorts, and approaches to the case definitions of thromboembolism likely contributed to the variability in estimates of thromboembolism risk across the countries.Keywords: COVID-19, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism

Abstract Background In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting.

Abstract Background There is currently no consensus on the impact of class imbalance methods on the performance of clinical prediction models. We aimed to empirically investigate the impact of random oversampling and random undersampling, two commonly used class imbalance methods, on the internal and external validation performance of prediction models developed using observational health data. Methods We developed and externally validated prediction models for various outcomes of interest within a target population of people with pharmaceutically treated depression across four large observational health databases. We used three different classifiers (lasso logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost) and varied the target imbalance ratio. We evaluated the impact on model performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration was assessed using calibration plots. Results We developed and externally validated a total of 1,566 prediction models. On internal and external validation, random oversampling and random undersampling generally did not result in higher AUROCs. Moreover, we found overestimated risks, although this miscalibration could largely be corrected by recalibrating the models towards the imbalance ratios in the original dataset. Conclusions Overall, we found that random oversampling or random undersampling generally does not improve the internal and external validation performance of prediction models developed in large observational health databases. Based on our findings, we do not recommend applying random oversampling or random undersampling when developing prediction models in large observational health databases.

Abstract Background Deep learning models have had a lot of success in various fields. However, on structured data they have struggled. Here we apply four state-of-the-art supervised deep learning models using the attention mechanism and compare against logistic regression and XGBoost using discrimination, calibration and clinical utility. Methods We develop the models using a general practitioners database. We implement a recurrent neural network, a transformer with and without reverse distillation and a graph neural network. We measure discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC). We assess smooth calibration using restricted cubic splines and clinical utility with decision curve analysis. Results Our results show that deep learning approaches can improve discrimination up to 2.5% points AUC and 7.4% points AUPRC. However, on average the baselines are competitive. Most models are similarly calibrated as the baselines except for the graph neural network. The transformer using reverse distillation shows the best performance in clinical utility on two out of three prediction problems over most of the prediction thresholds. Conclusion In this study, we evaluated various approaches in supervised learning using neural networks and attention. Here we do a rigorous comparison, not only looking at discrimination but also calibration and clinical utility. There is value in using deep learning models on electronic health record data since it can improve discrimination and clinical utility while providing good calibration. However, good baseline methods are still competitive.

Berta Raventós,1,2,* Sergio Fernández-Bertolín,1,* María Aragón,1 Erica A Voss,3– 5 Clair Blacketer,3– 5 Leonardo Méndez-Boo,6 Martina Recalde,1 Elena Roel,1,2 Andrea Pistillo,1,7 Carlen Reyes,1 Sebastiaan van Sandijk,8 Lars Halvorsen,9 Peter R Rijnbeek,4,5 Edward Burn,1,10 Talita Duarte-Salles1,4 1Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain; 2Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain; 3Janssen Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA; 4Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 5OHDSI Collaborators, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI), New York, NY, USA; 6Sistemes d’Informació dels Serveis d’Atenció Primària (SISAP), Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain; 7Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; 8Odysseus Data Services s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic; 9edenceHealth NV, Kontich, Belgium; 10Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Talita Duarte-Salles, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Gran Via Corts Catalanes, 587 àtic, Barcelona, 08007, Spain, Tel +34935824342, Email tduarte@idiapjgol.orgPurpose: The primary aim of this work was to convert the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) from Catalonia, Spain, to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). Our second aim was to provide a descriptive analysis of COVID-19-related outcomes among the general population.Patients and Methods: We mapped patient-level data from SIDIAP to the OMOP CDM and we performed more than 3,400 data quality checks to assess its readiness for research. We established a general population cohort as of the 1st March 2020 and identified outpatient COVID-19 diagnoses or tested positive for, hospitalised with, admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with, died with, or vaccinated against COVID-19 up to 30th June 2022.Results: After verifying the high quality of the transformed dataset, we included 5,870,274 individuals in the general population cohort. Of those, 604,472 had either an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test result, 58,991 had a hospitalisation, 5,642 had an ICU admission, and 11,233 died with COVID-19. A total of 4,584,515 received a COVID-19 vaccine. People who were hospitalised or died were more commonly older, male, and with more comorbidities. Those admitted to ICU with COVID-19 were generally younger and more often male than those hospitalised and those who died.Conclusion: We successfully transformed SIDIAP to the OMOP CDM. From this dataset, a general population cohort of 5.9 million individuals was identified and their COVID-19-related outcomes over time were described. The transformed SIDIAP database is a valuable resource that can enable distributed network research in COVID-19 and beyond.Keywords: electronic health records, medical ontologies, secondary data use, common data model, OMOP

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether we could use influenza data to develop prediction models for COVID-19 to increase the speed at which prediction models can reliably be developed and validated early in a pandemic. We developed COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patients risk of hospital admission with pneumonia (COVER-H), hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms and tested this in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries containing data collected on or before 4/27/2020. We used a 2-step process to develop 3 scores using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The first step was to create a data-driven model using LASSO regularized logistic regression, the covariates of which were used to develop aggregate covariates for the second step where the COVER scores were developed using a smaller set of features. These 3 COVER scores were then externally validated on patients with 1) influenza or flu-like symptoms and 2) confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across 5 databases from South Korea, Spain, and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death, and iii) death in the 30 days after index date. RESULTS: Overall, 44,507 COVID-19 patients were included for model validation. We identified 7 predictors (history of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease) which combined with age and sex discriminated which patients would experience any of our three outcomes. The models achieved good performance in influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. For COVID-19 the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69-0.81, COVER-I: 0.73-0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72-0.90. Calibration varied across the validations with some of the COVID-19 validations being less well calibrated than the influenza validations. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrated the utility of using a proxy disease to develop a prediction model. The 3 COVER models with 9-predictors that were developed using influenza data perform well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality. The scores showed good discriminatory performance which transferred well to the COVID-19 population. There was some miscalibration in the COVID-19 validations, which is potentially due to the difference in symptom severity between the two diseases. A possible solution for this is to recalibrate the models in each location before use.

Background: Characterization studies of COVID-19 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited in size and scope. The aim of the study is to provide a large-scale characterization of COVID-19 patients with COPD. Methods: We included thirteen databases contributing data from January-June 2020 from North America (US), Europe and Asia. We defined two cohorts of patients with COVID-19 namely a 'diagnosed' and 'hospitalized' cohort. 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 among COPD patients with COVID-19. Results: The study included 934,778 patients in the diagnosed COVID-19 cohort and 177,201 in the hospitalized COVID-19 cohort. Observed COPD prevalence in the diagnosed cohort ranged from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5-4.1%) in French data to 22.7% (95%CI 22.4-23.0) in US data, and from 1.9% (95%CI 1.6-2.2) in South Korean to 44.0% (95%CI 43.1-45.0) in US data, in the hospitalized cohorts. COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort had greater comorbidity than those in the diagnosed cohort, including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality was higher in COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort and ranged from 7.6% (95%CI 6.9-8.4) to 32.2% (95%CI 28.0-36.7) across databases. ARDS, acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmia and sepsis were the most common outcomes among hospitalized COPD patients.   Conclusion: COPD patients with COVID-19 have high levels of COVID-19-associated comorbidities and poor COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is required to identify patients with COPD at high risk of worse outcomes.

Objective: Background incidence rates are routinely used in safety studies to evaluate an association of an exposure and outcome. Systematic research on sensitivity of rates to the choice of the study parameters is lacking. Materials and Methods: We used 12 data sources to systematically examine the influence of age, race, sex, database, time-at-risk, season and year, prior observation and clean window on incidence rates using 15 adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines as an example. For binary comparisons we calculated incidence rate ratios and performed random-effect meta-analysis. Results: We observed a wide variation of background rates that goes well beyond age and database effects previously observed. While rates vary up to a factor of 1,000 across age groups, even after adjusting for age and sex, the study showed residual bias due to the other parameters. Rates were highly influenced by the choice of anchoring (e.g., health visit, vaccination, or arbitrary date) for the time-at-risk start. Anchoring on a healthcare encounter yielded higher incidence comparing to a random date, especially for short time-at-risk. Incidence rates were highly influenced by the choice of the database (varying by up to a factor of 100), clean window choice and time-at-risk duration, and less so by secular or seasonal trends. Conclusion: Comparing background to observed rates requires appropriate adjustment and careful time-at-risk start and duration choice. Results should be interpreted in the context of study parameter choices.

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.

ObjectiveTo characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients.Design and settingThis is a retrospective cohort study using 15 healthcare databases (primary and secondary electronic healthcare records, insurance and national claims data) from the USA, Europe and South Korea, standardised to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. Data were gathered from 1 March to 31 October 2020.ParticipantsTwo non-mutually exclusive cohorts were defined: (1) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (diagnosed cohort) and (2) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 (hospitalised cohort), and stratified by hypertension status. Follow-up was from COVID-19 diagnosis/hospitalisation to death, end of the study period or 30 days.OutcomesDemographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported.ResultsWe identified 2 851 035 diagnosed and 563 708 hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Hypertension was more prevalent in the latter (ranging across databases from 17.4% (95% CI 17.2 to 17.6) to 61.4% (95% CI 61.0 to 61.8) and from 25.6% (95% CI 24.6 to 26.6) to 85.9% (95% CI 85.2 to 86.6)). Patients in both cohorts with hypertension were predominantly >50 years old and female. Patients with hypertension were frequently diagnosed with obesity, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes. Compared with patients without hypertension, patients with hypertension in the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort had more hospitalisations (ranging from 1.3% (95% CI 0.4 to 2.2) to 41.1% (95% CI 39.5 to 42.7) vs from 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) to 15.9% (95% CI 14.9 to 16.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) to 18.5% (95% CI 15.7 to 21.3) vs from 0.2% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.2) to 11.8% (95% CI 10.8 to 12.8)). Patients in the COVID-19 hospitalised cohort with hypertension were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ranging from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 65.6% (95% CI 62.5 to 68.7) vs from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 54.7% (95% CI 50.5 to 58.9)), arrhythmia (ranging from 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) to 45.8% (95% CI 42.6 to 49.0) vs from 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) to 36.8% (95% CI 32.7 to 40.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 1.8% (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2) to 25.1% (95% CI 23.0 to 27.2) vs from 0.7% (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) to 10.9% (95% CI 10.4 to 11.4)) than patients without hypertension.ConclusionsCOVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension.

Background and objectiveAs a response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several prediction models in the existing literature were rapidly developed, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance. However, none of these COVID-19 prediction models have been found to be reliable. Models are commonly assessed to have a risk of bias, often due to insufficient reporting, use of non-representative data, and lack of large-scale external validation. In this paper, we present the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modeling as a standardized approach for rapid yet reliable development and validation of prediction models. We demonstrate how our analytics pipeline and open-source software tools can be used to answer important prediction questions while limiting potential causes of bias (e.g., by validating phenotypes, specifying the target population, performing large-scale external validation, and publicly providing all analytical source code).MethodsWe show step-by-step how to implement the analytics pipeline for the question: 'In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, what is the risk of death 0 to 30 days after hospitalization?'. We develop models using six different machine learning methods in a USA claims database containing over 20,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and externally validate the models using data containing over 45,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations from South Korea, Spain, and the USA.ResultsOur open-source software tools enabled us to efficiently go end-to-end from problem design to reliable Model Development and evaluation. When predicting death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, AdaBoost, random forest, gradient boosting machine, and decision tree yielded similar or lower internal and external validation discrimination performance compared to L1-regularized logistic regression, whereas the MLP neural network consistently resulted in lower discrimination. L1-regularized logistic regression models were well calibrated.ConclusionOur results show that following the OHDSI analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modelling can enable the rapid development towards reliable prediction models. The OHDSI software tools and pipeline are open source and available to researchers from all around the world.

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.

PurposeA lifestyle front office (LFO) in the hospital is a not yet existing, novel concept that can refer patients under treatment in the hospital to community-based lifestyle interventions (CBLI). The aim of this study was to identify implementation barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an LFO in the hospital from the perspective of CBLI-professionals and to develop evidence-based implementation strategies to reduce these identified barriers.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews until data saturation, with 23 lifestyle professionals working in the community. A semi-structured topic guide was used, inquiring about (1) community-based lifestyle interventions; (2) their views about referral from the LFO; and (3) their preferences, needs and recommendations for collaboration with the LFO in the hospital. The online interviews lasted on average 46 minutes, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis was conducted. Found barriers and facilitators regarding the LFO where mapped using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) whereafter evidence based strategies were developed using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Strategy Matching Tool V.1.0 (CFIR-ERIC).ResultsBarriers and facilitators were divided into two main themes: 1) barriers and facilitators related to the referral from LFO to CBLI (i.e. financial, cultural, geographical, quality) and 2) barriers and facilitators related to the collaboration between LFO and CBLI (i.e. referral, communication platform and partnership). Thirty-seven implementation strategies concerning 15 barriers were developed and clustered into six overarching strategies: identify referral options, determine qualifications lifestyle professionals, develop support tools, build networks, facilitate learning collaboratives, and optimize workflow.ConclusionsIn this study, barriers and facilitators for the development of the LFO were found and matching implementation strategies were developed. Practical improvements, like identifying specific referral options or develop support tools, can be implemented immediately. The implementation of other strategies, like connecting care pathways in basic services, primary, secondary and tertiary care, will take more time and effort to come to full potential. Future research should evaluate all implemented strategies.

Introduction: Real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) holds significant potential for informing healthcare decision-making. A multistakeholder workshop was organised by the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN) and the GetReal Institute to explore the status, challenges, and opportunities in incorporating RWE into HTA, with a focus on learning from regulatory initiatives such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Data Analysis and Real World Interrogation Network (DARWIN EU®).Methods: The workshop gathered key stakeholders from regulatory agencies, HTA organizations, academia, and industry for three panel discussions on RWE and HTA integration. Insights and recommendations were collected through panel discussions and audience polls. The workshop outcomes were reviewed by authors to identify key themes, challenges, and recommendations.Results: The workshop discussions revealed several important findings relating to the use of RWE in HTA. Compared with regulatory processes, its adoption in HTA to date has been slow. Barriers include limited trust in RWE, data quality concerns, and uncertainty about best practices. Facilitators include multidisciplinary training, educational initiatives, and stakeholder collaboration, which could be facilitated by initiatives like EHDEN and the GetReal Institute. Demonstrating the impact of “driver projects” could promote RWE adoption in HTA.Conclusion: To enhance the integration of RWE in HTA, it is crucial to address known barriers through comprehensive training, stakeholder collaboration, and impactful exemplar research projects. By upskilling users and beneficiaries of RWE and those that generate it, promoting collaboration, and conducting “driver projects,” can strengthen the HTA evidence base for more informed healthcare decisions.

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

Abstract Background Baseline outcome risk can be an important determinant of absolute treatment benefit and has been used in guidelines for “personalizing” medical decisions. We compared easily applicable risk-based methods for optimal prediction of individualized treatment effects. Methods We simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk, the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the prognostic index). We predicted absolute benefit using: models with a constant relative treatment effect; stratification in quarters of the prognostic index; models including a linear interaction of treatment with the prognostic index; models including an interaction of treatment with a restricted cubic spline transformation of the prognostic index; an adaptive approach using Akaike’s Information Criterion. We evaluated predictive performance using root mean squared error and measures of discrimination and calibration for benefit. Results The linear-interaction model displayed optimal or close-to-optimal performance across many simulation scenarios with moderate sample size (N = 4,250; ~ 785 events). The restricted cubic splines model was optimal for strong non-linear deviations from a constant treatment effect, particularly when sample size was larger (N = 17,000). The adaptive approach also required larger sample sizes. These findings were illustrated in the GUSTO-I trial. Conclusions An interaction between baseline risk and treatment assignment should be considered to improve treatment effect predictions.

Abstract Treatment effects are often anticipated to vary across groups of patients with different baseline risk. The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this study is to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five steps: (1) definition of the research aim, i.e., the population, the treatment, the comparator and the outcome(s) of interest; (2) identification of relevant databases; (3) development of a prediction model for the outcome(s) of interest; (4) estimation of relative and absolute treatment effect within strata of predicted risk, after adjusting for observed confounding; (5) presentation of the results. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating heterogeneity of the effect of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on three efficacy and nine safety outcomes across three observational databases. We provide a publicly available R software package for applying this framework to any database mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. In our demonstration, patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction receive negligible absolute benefits for all three efficacy outcomes, though they are more pronounced in the highest risk group, especially for acute myocardial infarction. Our framework allows for the evaluation of differential treatment effects across risk strata, which offers the opportunity to consider the benefit-harm trade-off between alternative treatments.

ObjectiveTo quantify the background incidence rates of 15 prespecified adverse events of special interest (AESIs) associated with covid-19 vaccines.DesignMultinational network cohort study.SettingElectronic health records and health claims data from eight countries: Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, mapped to a common data model.Participants126 661 070 people observed for at least 365 days before 1 January 2017, 2018, or 2019 from 13 databases.Main outcome measuresEvents of interests were 15 prespecified AESIs (non-haemorrhagic and haemorrhagic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, anaphylaxis, Bell's palsy, myocarditis or pericarditis, narcolepsy, appendicitis, immune thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis (including acute disseminated encephalomyelitis), Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis). Incidence rates of AESIs were stratified by age, sex, and database. Rates were pooled across databases using random effects meta-analyses and classified according to the frequency categories of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.ResultsBackground rates varied greatly between databases. Deep vein thrombosis ranged from 387 (95% confidence interval 370 to 404) per 100 000 person years in UK CPRD GOLD data to 1443 (1416 to 1470) per 100 000 person years in US IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid data among women aged 65 to 74 years. Some AESIs increased with age. For example, myocardial infarction rates in men increased from 28 (27 to 29) per 100 000 person years among those aged 18-34 years to 1400 (1374 to 1427) per 100 000 person years in those older than 85 years in US Optum electronic health record data. Other AESIs were more common in young people. For example, rates of anaphylaxis among boys and men were 78 (75 to 80) per 100 000 person years in those aged 6-17 years and 8 (6 to 10) per 100 000 person years in those older than 85 years in Optum electronic health record data. Meta-analytic estimates of AESI rates were classified according to age and sex.ConclusionThis study found large variations in the observed rates of AESIs by age group and sex, showing the need for stratification or standardisation before using background rates for safety surveillance. Considerable population level heterogeneity in AESI rates was found between databases.

Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting immunoglobulin E (IgE) [omalizumab], type 2 (T2) cytokine interleukin (IL) 5 [mepolizumab, reslizumab], IL-4 Receptor (R) α [dupilumab], and IL-5R [benralizumab]), improve quality of life in patients with T2-driven inflammatory diseases. However, there is a concern for an increased risk of helminth infections. The aim was to explore safety signals of parasitic infections for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and benralizumab.Methods: Spontaneous reports were used from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2004 to 2021. Parasitic infections were defined as any type of parasitic infection term obtained from the Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities® (MedDRA®). Safety signal strength was assessed by the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR).Results: 15,502,908 reports were eligible for analysis. Amongst 175,888 reports for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and benralizumab, there were 79 reports on parasitic infections. Median age was 55 years (interquartile range 24–63 years) and 59.5% were female. Indications were known in 26 (32.9%) reports; 14 (53.8%) biologicals were reportedly prescribed for asthma, 8 (30.7%) for various types of dermatitis, and 2 (7.6%) for urticaria. A safety signal was observed for each biological, except for reslizumab (due to lack of power), with the strongest signal attributed to benralizumab (ROR = 15.7, 95% Confidence Interval: 8.4–29.3).Conclusion: Parasitic infections were disproportionately reported for mAbs targeting IgE, T2 cytokines, or T2 cytokine receptors. While the number of adverse event reports on parasitic infections in the database was relatively low, resulting safety signals were disproportionate and warrant further investigation.

Comorbid conditions appear to be common among individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but estimates of prevalence vary and little is known about the prior medication use of patients. Here, we describe the characteristics of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 and compare them with influenza patients. We include 34,128 (US: 8362, South Korea: 7341, Spain: 18,425) COVID-19 patients, summarising between 4811 and 11,643 unique aggregate characteristics. COVID-19 patients have been majority male in the US and Spain, but predominantly female in South Korea. Age profiles vary across data sources. Compared to 84,585 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, COVID-19 patients have more typically been male, younger, and with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. While protecting groups vulnerable to influenza is likely a useful starting point in the response to COVID-19, strategies will likely need to be broadened to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals being hospitalised with COVID-19.

Alendronate and raloxifene are among the most popular anti-osteoporosis medications. However, there is a lack of head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies comparing the two treatments. We conducted a retrospective large-scale multicenter study encompassing over 300 million patients across nine databases encoded in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). The primary outcome was the incidence of osteoporotic hip fracture, while secondary outcomes were vertebral fracture, atypical femoral fracture (AFF), osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and esophageal cancer. We used propensity score trimming and stratification based on an expansive propensity score model with all pre-treatment patient characteritistcs. We accounted for unmeasured confounding using negative control outcomes to estimate and adjust for residual systematic bias in each data source. We identified 283,586 alendronate patients and 40,463 raloxifene patients. There were 7.48 hip fracture, 8.18 vertebral fracture, 1.14 AFF, 0.21 esophageal cancer and 0.09 ONJ events per 1,000 person-years in the alendronate cohort and 6.62, 7.36, 0.69, 0.22 and 0.06 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, in the raloxifene cohort. Alendronate and raloxifene have a similar hip fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.13), but alendronate users are more likely to have vertebral fractures (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14). Alendronate has higher risk for AFF (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23-1.84) but similar risk for esophageal cancer (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53-1.70), and ONJ (HR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78-3.34). We demonstrated substantial control of measured confounding by propensity score adjustment, and minimal residual systematic bias through negative control experiments, lending credibility to our effect estimates. Raloxifene is as effective as alendronate and may remain an option in the prevention of osteoporotic fracture.

Abstract Background A healthy lifestyle is indispensable for the prevention of noncommunicable diseases. However, lifestyle medicine is hampered by time constraints and competing priorities of treating physicians. A dedicated lifestyle front office (LFO) in secondary/tertiary care may provide an important contribution to optimize patient-centred lifestyle care and connect to lifestyle initiatives from the community. The LOFIT study aims to gain insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of the LFO. Methods Two parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trials will be conducted for (cardio)vascular disorders (i.e. (at risk of) (cardio)vascular disease, diabetes) and musculoskeletal disorders (i.e. osteoarthritis, hip or knee prosthesis). Patients from three outpatient clinics in the Netherlands will be invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria are body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (kg/m2) and/or smoking. Participants will be randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a usual care control group. In total, we aim to include 552 patients, 276 in each trial divided over both treatment arms. Patients allocated to the intervention group will participate in a face-to-face motivational interviewing (MI) coaching session with a so-called lifestyle broker. The patient will be supported and guided towards suitable community-based lifestyle initiatives. A network communication platform will be used to communicate between the lifestyle broker, patient, referred community-based lifestyle initiative and/or other relevant stakeholders (e.g. general practitioner). The primary outcome measure is the adapted Fuster-BEWAT, a composite health risk and lifestyle score consisting of resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, objectively measured physical activity and sitting time, BMI, fruit and vegetable consumption and smoking behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cardiometabolic markers, anthropometrics, health behaviours, psychological factors, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), cost-effectiveness measures and a mixed-method process evaluation. Data collection will be conducted at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. Discussion This study will gain insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of a novel care model in which patients under treatment in secondary or tertiary care are referred to community-based lifestyle initiatives to change their lifestyle. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN13046877 . Registered 21 April 2022.

Abstract Background Many dementia prediction models have been developed, but only few have been externally validated, which hinders clinical uptake and may pose a risk if models are applied to actual patients regardless. Externally validating an existing prediction model is a difficult task, where we mostly rely on the completeness of model reporting in a published article. In this study, we aim to externally validate existing dementia prediction models. To that end, we define model reporting criteria, review published studies, and externally validate three well reported models using routinely collected health data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Methods We identified dementia prediction models that were developed between 2011 and 2020 and assessed if they could be externally validated given a set of model criteria. In addition, we externally validated three of these models (Walters’ Dementia Risk Score, Mehta’s RxDx-Dementia Risk Index, and Nori’s ADRD dementia prediction model) on a network of six observational health databases from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, including the original development databases of the models. Results We reviewed 59 dementia prediction models. All models reported the prediction method, development database, and target and outcome definitions. Less frequently reported by these 59 prediction models were predictor definitions (52 models) including the time window in which a predictor is assessed (21 models), predictor coefficients (20 models), and the time-at-risk (42 models). The validation of the model by Walters (development c-statistic: 0.84) showed moderate transportability (0.67–0.76 c-statistic). The Mehta model (development c-statistic: 0.81) transported well to some of the external databases (0.69–0.79 c-statistic). The Nori model (development AUROC: 0.69) transported well (0.62–0.68 AUROC) but performed modestly overall. Recalibration showed improvements for the Walters and Nori models, while recalibration could not be assessed for the Mehta model due to unreported baseline hazard. Conclusion We observed that reporting is mostly insufficient to fully externally validate published dementia prediction models, and therefore, it is uncertain how well these models would work in other clinical settings. We emphasize the importance of following established guidelines for reporting clinical prediction models. We recommend that reporting should be more explicit and have external validation in mind if the model is meant to be applied in different settings.

Population-based studies can provide information on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here the authors report the rates thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom and compare them with the background (expected) rates in the general population.

Population-based studies can provide information on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here the authors report the rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain and compare them with the background (expected) rates in the general population.