Search

BackgroundAccurate and rapid clinical decisions based on real-world evidence are essential for patients with cancer. However, the complexity of chemotherapy regimens for cancer impedes retrospective research that uses observational health databases. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the anticancer treatment trajectories and patterns of clinical events according to regimen type using the chemotherapy episodes determined by an algorithm. MethodsWe developed an algorithm to extract the regimen-level abstracted chemotherapy episodes from medication records in a conventional Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) database. The algorithm was validated on the Ajou University School Of Medicine (AUSOM) database by manual review of clinical notes. Using the algorithm, we extracted episodes of chemotherapy from patients in the EHR database and the claims database. We also developed an application software for visualizing the chemotherapy treatment patterns based on the treatment episodes in the OMOP-CDM database. Using this software, we generated the trends in the types of regimen used in the institutions, the patterns of the iterative chemotherapy use, and the trajectories of cancer treatment in two EHR-based OMOP-CDM databases. As a pilot study, the time of onset of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia according to regimen was measured using the AUSOM database. The anticancer treatment trajectories for patients with COVID-19 were also visualized based on the nationwide claims database. ResultsWe generated 178,360 treatment episodes for patients with colorectal, breast, and lung cancer for 85 different regimens. The algorithm precisely identified the type of chemotherapy regimen in 400 patients (average positive predictive value >98%). The trends in the use of routine clinical chemotherapy regimens from 2008-2018 were identified for 8236 patients. For a total of 12 regimens (those administered to the largest proportion of patients), the number of repeated treatments was concordant with the protocols for standard chemotherapy regimens for certain cases. In addition, the anticancer treatment trajectories for 8315 patients were shown, including 62 patients with COVID-19. A comparative analysis of neutropenia showed that its onset in colorectal cancer regimens tended to cluster between days 9-15, whereas it tended to cluster between days 2-8 for certain regimens for breast cancer or lung cancer. ConclusionsWe propose a method for generating chemotherapy episodes for introduction into the oncology extension module of the OMOP-CDM databases. These proof-of-concept studies demonstrated the usability, scalability, and interoperability of the proposed framework through a distributed research network.

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.

BackgroundAlthough electronic health records (EHRs) have been widely used in secondary assessments, clinical documents are relatively less utilized owing to the lack of standardized clinical text frameworks across different institutions. ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a framework for processing unstructured clinical documents of EHRs and integration with standardized structured data. MethodsWe developed a framework known as Staged Optimization of Curation, Regularization, and Annotation of clinical text (SOCRATex). SOCRATex has the following four aspects: (1) extracting clinical notes for the target population and preprocessing the data, (2) defining the annotation schema with a hierarchical structure, (3) performing document-level hierarchical annotation using the annotation schema, and (4) indexing annotations for a search engine system. To test the usability of the proposed framework, proof-of-concept studies were performed on EHRs. We defined three distinctive patient groups and extracted their clinical documents (ie, pathology reports, radiology reports, and admission notes). The documents were annotated and integrated into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP)-common data model (CDM) database. The annotations were used for creating Cox proportional hazard models with different settings of clinical analyses to measure (1) all-cause mortality, (2) thyroid cancer recurrence, and (3) 30-day hospital readmission. ResultsOverall, 1055 clinical documents of 953 patients were extracted and annotated using the defined annotation schemas. The generated annotations were indexed into an unstructured textual data repository. Using the annotations of pathology reports, we identified that node metastasis and lymphovascular tumor invasion were associated with all-cause mortality among colon and rectum cancer patients (both P=.02). The other analyses involving measuring thyroid cancer recurrence using radiology reports and 30-day hospital readmission using admission notes in depressive disorder patients also showed results consistent with previous findings. ConclusionsWe propose a framework for hierarchical annotation of textual data and integration into a standardized OMOP-CDM medical database. The proof-of-concept studies demonstrated that our framework can effectively process and integrate diverse clinical documents with standardized structured data for clinical research.

BackgroundAlthough telehealth is considered a key component in combating the worldwide crisis caused by COVID-19, the factors that influence its acceptance by the general population after the flattening of the COVID-19 curve remain unclear. ObjectiveWe aimed to identify factors affecting telehealth acceptance, including anxiety related to COVID-19, after the initial rapid spread of the disease in South Korea. MethodsWe proposed an extended technology acceptance model (TAM) and performed a cross-sectional survey of individuals aged ≥30 years. In total, 471 usable responses were collected. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the validity of measurements, and the partial least squares (PLS) method was used to investigate factors influencing telehealth acceptance and the impacts of COVID-19. ResultsPLS analysis showed that increased accessibility, enhanced care, and ease of telehealth use had positive effects on its perceived usefulness (P=.002, P

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.

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.

[Figure: see text].

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

[Figure: see text].

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.

ObjectivesTo demonstrate the application of the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) principles described in our companion article to hypertension treatments and assess internal and external validity of the generated evidence.Materials and methodsLEGEND defines a process for high-quality observational research based on 10 guiding principles. We demonstrate how this process, here implemented through large-scale propensity score modeling, negative and positive control questions, empirical calibration, and full transparency, can be applied to compare antihypertensive drug therapies. We assess internal validity through covariate balance, confidence-interval coverage, between-database heterogeneity, and transitivity of results. We assess external validity through comparison to direct meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).ResultsFrom 21.6 million unique antihypertensive new users, we generate 6 076 775 effect size estimates for 699 872 research questions on 12 946 treatment comparisons. Through propensity score matching, we achieve balance on all baseline patient characteristics for 75% of estimates, observe 95.7% coverage in our effect-estimate 95% confidence intervals, find high between-database consistency, and achieve transitivity in 84.8% of triplet hypotheses. Compared with meta-analyses of RCTs, our results are consistent with 28 of 30 comparisons while providing narrower confidence intervals.ConclusionWe find that these LEGEND results show high internal validity and are congruent with meta-analyses of RCTs. For these reasons we believe that evidence generated by LEGEND is of high quality and can inform medical decision-making where evidence is currently lacking. Subsequent publications will explore the clinical interpretations of this evidence.

Evidence derived from existing health-care data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, can fill evidence gaps in medicine. However, many claim such data cannot be used to estimate causal treatment effects because of the potential for observational study bias; for example, due to residual confounding. Other concerns include P hacking and publication bias. In response, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics international collaborative launched the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) research initiative. Its mission is to generate evidence on the effects of medical interventions using observational health-care databases while addressing the aforementioned concerns by following a recently proposed paradigm. We define 10 principles of LEGEND that enshrine this new paradigm, prescribing the generation and dissemination of evidence on many research questions at once; for example, comparing all treatments for a disease for many outcomes, thus preventing publication bias. These questions are answered using a prespecified and systematic approach, avoiding P hacking. Best-practice statistical methods address measured confounding, and control questions (research questions where the answer is known) quantify potential residual bias. Finally, the evidence is generated in a network of databases to assess consistency by sharing open-source analytics code to enhance transparency and reproducibility, but without sharing patient-level information. Here we detail the LEGEND principles and provide a generic overview of a LEGEND study. Our companion paper highlights an example study on the effects of hypertension treatments, and evaluates the internal and external validity of the evidence we generate.

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.

Background and objectives: 2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).Methods: Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.Results: A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.Conclusions: There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

BACKGROUND:Uncertainty remains about the optimal monotherapy for hypertension, with current guidelines recommending any primary agent among the first-line drug classes thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, in the absence of comorbid indications. Randomised trials have not further refined this choice. METHODS:We developed a comprehensive framework for real-world evidence that enables comparative effectiveness and safety evaluation across many drugs and outcomes from observational data encompassing millions of patients, while minimising inherent bias. Using this framework, we did a systematic, large-scale study under a new-user cohort design to estimate the relative risks of three primary (acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for heart failure, and stroke) and six secondary effectiveness and 46 safety outcomes comparing all first-line classes across a global network of six administrative claims and three electronic health record databases. The framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propensity adjustment, a large set of control outcomes, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested. FINDINGS:Using 4·9 million patients, we generated 22 000 calibrated, propensity-score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing all classes and outcomes across databases. Most estimates revealed no effectiveness differences between classes; however, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics showed better primary effectiveness than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: acute myocardial infarction (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75-0·95), hospitalisation for heart failure (0·83, 0·74-0·95), and stroke (0·83, 0·74-0·95) risk while on initial treatment. Safety profiles also favoured thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were significantly inferior to the other four classes. INTERPRETATION:This comprehensive framework introduces a new way of doing observational health-care science at scale. The approach supports equivalence between drug classes for initiating monotherapy for hypertension-in keeping with current guidelines, with the exception of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics superiority to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. FUNDING:US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.