Calculating daily dose in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.

PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a standardized method to calculate daily dose (i.e., the amount of drug a patient was exposed to per day) of any drug on a global scale using only drug information of typical observational data in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) and a single reference table from Observational Health Data Sciences And Informatics (OHDSI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OMOP DRUG_STRENGTH reference table contains information on the strength or concentration of drugs, whereas the OMOP DRUG_EXPOSURE table contains information on patients' drug prescriptions or dispensations/claims. Based on DRUG_EXPOSURE data from the primary care databases Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (United Kingdom) and Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI, The Netherlands) and healthcare claims from PharMetrics® Plus for Academics (USA), we developed four formulas to calculate daily dose given different DRUG_STRENGTH reference table information. We tested the dose formulas by comparing the calculated median daily dose to the World Health Organization (WHO) Defined Daily Dose (DDD) for six different ingredients in those three databases and additional four international databases representing a variety of healthcare settings: MAITT (Estonia, healthcare claims and discharge summaries), IQVIA Disease Analyzer Germany (outpatient data), IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database Belgium (outpatient data), and IMASIS Parc Salut (Spain, hospital data). Finally, in each database, we assessed the proportion of drug records for which daily dose calculations were possible using the suggested formulas. RESULTS: Applying the dose formulas, we obtained median daily doses that generally matched the WHO DDD definitions. Our dose formulas were applicable to >85% of drug records in all but one of the assessed databases. CONCLUSION: We have established and implemented a standardized daily dose calculation in OMOP CDM providing reliable and reproducible results.

Trends of use and characterisation of anti-dementia drugs users: a large multinational-network population-based study.

BACKGROUND: An updated time-trend analysis of anti-dementia drugs (ADDs) is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess the incident rate (IR) of ADD in individuals with dementia using real-world data. SETTING: Primary care data (country/database) from the UK/CPRD-GOLD (2007-20), Spain/SIDIAP (2010-20) and the Netherlands/IPCI (2008-20), standardised to a common data model. METHODS: Cohort study. Participants: dementia patients ≥40 years old with ≥1 year of previous data. Follow-up: until the end of the study period, transfer out of the catchment area, death or incident prescription of rivastigmine, galantamine, donepezil or memantine. Other variables: age/sex, type of dementia, comorbidities. Statistics: overall and yearly age/sex IR, with 95% confidence interval, per 100,000 person-years (IR per 105 PY (95%CI)). RESULTS: We identified a total of (incident anti-dementia users/dementia patients) 41,024/110,642 in UK/CPRD-GOLD, 51,667/134,927 in Spain/SIDIAP and 2,088/17,559 in the Netherlands/IPCI.In the UK, IR (per 105 PY (95%CI)) of ADD decreased from 2007 (30,829 (28,891-32,862)) to 2010 (17,793 (17,083-18,524)), then increased up to 2019 (31,601 (30,483 to 32,749)) and decrease in 2020 (24,067 (23,021-25,148)). In Spain, IR (per 105 PY (95%CI)) of ADD decreased by 72% from 2010 (51,003 (49,199-52,855)) to 2020 (14,571 (14,109-15,043)). In the Netherlands, IR (per 105 PY (95%CI)) of ADD decreased by 77% from 2009 (21,151 (14,967-29,031)) to 2020 (4763 (4176-5409)). Subjects aged ≥65-79 years and men (in the UK and the Netherlands) initiated more frequently an ADD. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of dementia remains highly heterogeneous. Further consensus in the pharmacological management of patients living with dementia is urgently needed.

Incident Use of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We studied whether the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 resulted in supply shortages for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: We used US claims data (IQVIA PHARMETRICS® Plus for Academics [PHARMETRICS]) and hospital electronic records from Spain (Institut Municipal d'Assistència Sanitària Information System [IMASIS]) to estimate monthly rates of HCQ use between January 2019 and March 2022, in the general population and in patients with RA and SLE. Methotrexate (MTX) use was estimated as a control. RESULTS: More than 13.5 million individuals (13,311,811 PHARMETRICS, 207,646 IMASIS) were included in the general population cohort. RA and SLE cohorts enrolled 135,259 and 39,295 patients, respectively, in PHARMETRICS. Incidence of MTX and HCQ were stable before March 2020. On March 2020, the incidence of HCQ increased by 9- and 67-fold in PHARMETRICS and IMASIS, respectively, and decreased in May 2020. Usage rates of HCQ went back to prepandemic trends in Spain but remained high in the United States, mimicking waves of COVID-19. No significant changes in HCQ use were noted among patients with RA and SLE. MTX use rates decreased during HCQ approval period for COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSION: Use of HCQ increased dramatically in the general population in both Spain and the United States during March and April 2020. Whereas Spain returned to prepandemic rates after the first wave, use of HCQ remained high and followed waves of COVID-19 in the United States. However, we found no evidence of general shortages in the use of HCQ for both RA and SLE in the United States.

Real-world treatment trajectories of adults with newly diagnosed asthma or COPD.

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.

Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-National Collaboration of Regulatory Agencies from Canada, Europe, and United States.

Purpose: 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.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent long COVID symptoms: staggered cohort study of data from the UK, Spain, and Estonia.

BACKGROUND: Although vaccines have proved effective to prevent severe COVID-19, their effect on preventing long-term symptoms is not yet fully understood. We aimed to evaluate the overall effect of vaccination to prevent long COVID symptoms and assess comparative effectiveness of the most used vaccines (ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2). METHODS: We conducted a staggered cohort study using primary care records from the UK (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD] GOLD and AURUM), Catalonia, Spain (Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]), and national health insurance claims from Estonia (CORIVA database). All adults who were registered for at least 180 days as of Jan 4, 2021 (the UK), Feb 20, 2021 (Spain), and Jan 28, 2021 (Estonia) comprised the source population. Vaccination status was used as a time-varying exposure, staggered by vaccine rollout period. Vaccinated people were further classified by vaccine brand according to their first dose received. The primary outcome definition of long COVID was defined as having at least one of 25 WHO-listed symptoms between 90 and 365 days after the date of a PCR-positive test or clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, with no history of that symptom 180 days before SARS-Cov-2 infection. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied separately for each cohort to minimise confounding. Sub-distribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to estimate vaccine effectiveness against long COVID, and empirically calibrated using negative control outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses across staggered cohorts were conducted to pool overall effect estimates. FINDINGS: A total of 1 618 395 (CPRD GOLD), 5 729 800 (CPRD AURUM), 2 744 821 (SIDIAP), and 77 603 (CORIVA) vaccinated people and 1 640 371 (CPRD GOLD), 5 860 564 (CPRD AURUM), 2 588 518 (SIDIAP), and 302 267 (CORIVA) unvaccinated people were included. Compared with unvaccinated people, overall HRs for long COVID symptoms in people vaccinated with a first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine were 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67) in CPRD GOLD, 0·48 (0·34-0·68) in CPRD AURUM, 0·71 (0·55-0·91) in SIDIAP, and 0·59 (0·40-0·87) in CORIVA. A slightly stronger preventative effect was seen for the first dose of BNT162b2 than for ChAdOx1 (sHR 0·85 [0·60-1·20] in CPRD GOLD and 0·84 [0·74-0·94] in CPRD AURUM). INTERPRETATION: Vaccination against COVID-19 consistently reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms, which highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent persistent COVID-19 symptoms, particularly in adults. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Observational methods for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness research: an empirical evaluation and target trial emulation.

BACKGROUND: There are scarce data on best practices to control for confounding in observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19. We compared the performance of three well-established methods [overlap weighting, inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score (PS) matching] to minimize confounding when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Subsequently, we conducted a target trial emulation to study the ability of these methods to replicate COVID-19 vaccine trials. METHODS: We included all individuals aged ≥75 from primary care records from the UK [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) AURUM], who were not infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as of 4 January 2021. Vaccination status was then defined based on first COVID-19 vaccine dose exposure between 4 January 2021 and 28 January 2021. Lasso regression was used to calculate PS. Location, age, prior observation time, regional vaccination rates, testing effort and COVID-19 incidence rates at index date were forced into the PS. Following PS weighting and matching, the three methods were compared for remaining covariate imbalance and residual confounding. Last, a target trial emulation comparing COVID-19 at 3 and 12 weeks after first vaccine dose vs unvaccinated was conducted. RESULTS: Vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts comprised 583 813 and 332 315 individuals for weighting, respectively, and 459 000 individuals in the matched cohorts. Overlap weighting performed best in terms of minimizing confounding and systematic error. Overlap weighting successfully replicated estimates from clinical trials for vaccine effectiveness for ChAdOx1 (57%) and BNT162b2 (75%) at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Overlap weighting performed best in our setting. Our results based on overlap weighting replicate previous pivotal trials for the two first COVID-19 vaccines approved in Europe.

Applying Trial-Derived Treatment Effects to Real-World Populations: Generalizing Cost-Effectiveness Estimates When Modeling Complex Hazards.

OBJECTIVES: Generalizability of trial-based cost-effectiveness estimates to real-world target populations is important for decision making. In the context of independent aggregate time-to-event baseline and relative effects data, complex hazards can make modeling of data for use in economic evaluation challenging. Our article provides an overview of methods that can be used to apply trial-derived relative treatment effects to external real-world baselines when faced with complex hazards and follows with a motivating example. METHODS: Approaches for applying trial-derived relative effects to real-world baselines are presented in the context of complex hazards. Appropriate methods are applied in a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a previously published study assessing the real-world cost-effectiveness of a treatment for carcinoma of the head and neck as a motivating example. RESULTS: Lack of common hazards between the trial and target real-world population, a complex baseline hazard function, and nonproportional relative effects made the use of flexible models necessary to adequately estimate survival. Assuming common distributions between trial and real-world reference survival substantially affected survival and cost-effectiveness estimates. Modeling time-dependent vs proportional relative effects affected estimates to a lesser extent, dependent on assumptions used in cost-effectiveness modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately capturing reference treatment survival when attempting to generalize trial-derived relative treatment effects to real-world target populations can have important impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates. A balance between model complexity and adequacy for decision making should be considered where multiple data sources with complex hazards are being evaluated.

IncidencePrevalence: An R package to calculate population-level incidence rates and prevalence using the OMOP common data model.

PURPOSE: Real-world data (RWD) offers a valuable resource for generating population-level disease epidemiology metrics. We aimed to develop a well-tested and user-friendly R package to compute incidence rates and prevalence in data mapped to the observational medical outcomes partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created IncidencePrevalence, an R package to support the analysis of population-level incidence rates and point- and period-prevalence in OMOP-formatted data. On top of unit testing, we assessed the face validity of the package. To do so, we calculated incidence rates of COVID-19 using RWD from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United Kingdom (CPRD Aurum), and replicated two previously published studies using data from the Netherlands (IPCI) and the United Kingdom (CPRD Gold). We compared the obtained results to those previously published, and measured execution times by running a benchmark analysis across databases. RESULTS: IncidencePrevalence achieved high agreement to previously published data in CPRD Gold and IPCI, and showed good performance across databases. For COVID-19, incidence calculated by the package was similar to public data after the first-wave of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: For data mapped to the OMOP CDM, the IncidencePrevalence R package can support descriptive epidemiological research. It enables reliable estimation of incidence and prevalence from large real-world data sets. It represents a simple, but extendable, analytical framework to generate estimates in a reproducible and timely manner.

Transforming the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) in Catalonia to the OMOP Common Data Model and Its Use for COVID-19 Research.

Purpose: 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.

Characterising the treatment of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination in 4 European countries and the US: An international network cohort study.

Background: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been identified as a rare adverse event following some COVID-19 vaccines. Various guidelines have been issued on the treatment of TTS. We aimed to characterize the treatment of TTS and other thromboembolic events (venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) after COVID-19 vaccination and compared to historical (pre-vaccination) data in Europe and the US. Methods: We conducted an international network cohort study using 8 primary care, outpatient, and inpatient databases from France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, The United Kingdom, and The United States. We investigated treatment pathways after the diagnosis of TTS, VTE, or ATE for a pre-vaccination (background) cohort (01/2017-11/2020), and a vaccinated cohort of people followed for 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine recorded from 12/2020 onwards). Results: Great variability was observed in the proportion of people treated (with any recommended therapy) across databases, both before and after vaccination. Most patients with TTS received heparins, platelet aggregation inhibitors, or direct Xa inhibitors. The majority of VTE patients (before and after vaccination) were first treated with heparins in inpatient settings and direct Xa inhibitors in outpatient settings. In ATE patients, treatments were also similar before and after vaccinations, with platelet aggregation inhibitors prescribed most frequently. Inpatient and claims data also showed substantial heparin use. Conclusion: TTS, VTE, and ATE after COVID-19 vaccination were treated similarly to background events. Heparin use post-vaccine TTS suggests most events were not identified as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia by the treating clinicians.

Association between outpatient follow-up and incidence of revision after knee and hip replacements: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery. METHODS: Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department ('Follow-up' group), and those without ('No follow-up' group). RESULTS: A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]). CONCLUSION: Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists.

Dupuytren Disease: Prevalence, Incidence, and Lifetime Risk of Surgical Intervention. A Population-Based Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health care burden attributable to Dupuytren disease (DD) is largely unknown. The authors determined (1) the prevalence and incidence of DD, (2) the incidence of first surgical intervention, and (3) the lifetime risk of surgical intervention in the United Kingdom National Healthcare Service. METHODS: In this population-based dynamic cohort analysis, data of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, to characterize the diagnosis and surgical treatment of DD. Secular trends of incidence of DD diagnosis and first surgical treatment were calculated for 2000 to 2013. A multistate Markov model was designed to estimate the lifetime risk of first surgical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 10,553,454 subjects were included in the analyses, 5,502,879 (52%) of whom were women. Of these, 38,707 DD patients were identified. Point prevalence in 2013 was 0.67% (99% CI, 0.66 to 0.68). The incidence of DD almost doubled from 0.30 (99% CI, 0.28 to 0.33) per 1000 person-years in 2000, to 0.59 (99% CI, 0.56 to 0.62) per 1000 person-years in 2013. The incidence of first surgical intervention similarly increased from 0.29 (99% CI, 0.23 to 0.37) to 0.88 (99% CI, 0.77 to 1.00) in the same period. A man or woman newly diagnosed with DD at age 65 has a lifetime risk of surgical intervention of 23% and 13%, respectively, showing only a very subtle decrease when diagnosed later in life. CONCLUSIONS: DD is an important health condition in the older population, because prevalence and incidence rates have almost doubled in the past decade. Estimated lifetime risk of surgical treatment is relatively low, but almost twice in men compared with women. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Expected Benefits and Budget Impact From a Microsimulation Model Support the Prioritization and Implementation of Fracture Liaison Services.

Osteoporotic-related fractures cause significant patient disability, leading to a growing burden on health care systems. Effective secondary fracture prevention can be delivered by fracture liaison services (FLSs), but these are not available in most countries. A major barrier is insufficient policy prioritization, helped by the lack of economic assessments using national data and providing estimates of patient outcomes alongside health care resource use and cost impacts. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to estimate the benefits and budget impact of FLSs and support their wider international implementation. Five interconnected stages were undertaken: establishment of a generic patient pathway; model design; identification of model inputs; internal validation and output generation; and scenario analyses. A generic patient pathway including FLS activities was built to underpin the economic model. A state-based microsimulation model was developed to estimate the impact of FLSs compared with current practice for men and women aged 50 years or older with a fragility fracture. The model provides estimates for health outcomes (subsequent fractures avoided and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), resource use, and health and social care costs, including those necessary for FLSs to operate, over 5 years. The model was run for an exemplar country the size of the United Kingdom. FLSs were estimated to lead to a reduction of 13,149 subsequent fractures and a gain of 11,709 QALYs. Hospital-bed days would be reduced by 120,989 and surgeries by 6455, while 3556 person-years of institutional social care would be avoided. Expected costs per QALY gained placed FLSs as highly cost-effective at £8258 per QALY gained over the first 5 years. Ten different scenarios were modeled using different configurations of FLSs. Further work to develop country-specific models is underway to delivery crucial national level data to inform the prioritization of FLSs by policy makers. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorders diagnoses among adolescents and young adults in Catalonia: A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trends in incidence rates (IR) of diagnoses of eating disorders (ED) among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: Population-based cohort study using primary care records of people aged 10-24 years between January, 2016 and December, 2021 in Catalonia, Spain. IRs were calculated monthly and grouped by the different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Catalonia: (1) the pre-lockdown (January, 2016-February, 2020), (2) lockdown (March-June, 2020) and, (3) post-lockdown (July, 2020-December, 2021) periods. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) relative to the corresponding periods in 2018-2019 were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,179,009 individuals were included. The IR was 9.2 per 100,000 person-months (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 8.9-9.5) during the pre-lockdown period. It decreased during the lockdown period (6.3 per 100,000 person-months [5.5-7.3]), but substantially increased during the following period (19.4. per 100,000 person-months [18.7-20.1]). While large reductions in IRs were observed for both sexes during the lockdown period (IRR 95% CI: 0.65 [0.54-0.78] in females and 0.46 [0.29-0.71] in males), substantial increases during the post-lockdown period were limited to females, and were particularly pronounced among those aged 10-14 and 15-19 years (2.50 [2.23-2.80] and 2.29 [2.07-2.54], respectively). DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in ED diagnoses, primarily driven by higher rates among adolescent females. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: This population-based cohort study demonstrated a substantial increase in incidence rates of eating disorders in primary care following the end of lockdown in Catalonia, Spain, with adolescent girls seen to be most affected.

Integrating real-world data from Brazil and Pakistan into the OMOP common data model and standardized health analytics framework to characterize COVID-19 in the Global South.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work is to demonstrate the use of a standardized health informatics framework to generate reliable and reproducible real-world evidence from Latin America and South Asia towards characterizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Global South. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-level COVID-19 records collected in a patient self-reported notification system, hospital in-patient and out-patient records, and community diagnostic labs were harmonized to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model and analyzed using a federated network analytics framework. Clinical characteristics of individuals tested for, diagnosed with or tested positive for, hospitalized with, admitted to intensive care unit with, or dying with COVID-19 were estimated. RESULTS: Two COVID-19 databases covering 8.3 million people from Pakistan and 2.6 million people from Bahia, Brazil were analyzed. 109 504 (Pakistan) and 921 (Brazil) medical concepts were harmonized to Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. In total, 341 505 (4.1%) people in the Pakistan dataset and 1 312 832 (49.2%) people in the Brazilian dataset were tested for COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 20, 2022, with a median [IQR] age of 36 [25, 76] and 38 (27, 50); 40.3% and 56.5% were female in Pakistan and Brazil, respectively. 1.2% percent individuals in the Pakistan dataset had Afghan ethnicity. In Brazil, 52.3% had mixed ethnicity. In agreement with international findings, COVID-19 outcomes were more severe in men, elderly, and those with underlying health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 data from 2 large countries in the Global South were harmonized and analyzed using a standardized health informatics framework developed by an international community of health informaticians. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates a potential open science framework for global knowledge mobilization and clinical translation for timely response to healthcare needs in pandemics and beyond.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without asthma from the United States, South Korea, and Europe.

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

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination.

Comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with different covid-19 vaccines: international network cohort study from five European countries and the US.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with use of adenovirus based covid-19 vaccines versus mRNA based covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: International network cohort study. SETTING: Routinely collected health data from contributing datasets in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the US. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) registered at any contributing database and who received at least one dose of a covid-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)), from December 2020 to mid-2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or venous or arterial thromboembolic events within the 28 days after covid-19 vaccination. Incidence rate ratios were estimated after propensity scores matching and were calibrated using negative control outcomes. Estimates specific to the database were pooled by use of random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1 332 719 of 3 829 822 first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients were matched to 2 124 339 of 2 149 679 BNT162b2 recipients from Germany and the UK. Additionally, 762 517 of 772 678 people receiving Ad26.COV2.S were matched to 2 851 976 of 7 606 693 receiving BNT162b2 in Germany, Spain, and the US. All 628 164 Ad26.COV2.S recipients from the US were matched to 2 230 157 of 3 923 371 mRNA-1273 recipients. A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were observed in the matched first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of BNT162b2. Comparing ChAdOx1-S with a first dose of BNT162b2 revealed an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.50) and calibrated incidence rate difference of 1.18 (0.57 to 1.8) per 1000 person years). Additionally, a pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio of 2.26 (0.93 to 5.52) for venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome was seen with Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this multinational study, a pooled 30% increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine was observed, as was a trend towards an increased risk of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. Although rare, the observed risks after adenovirus based vaccines should be considered when planning further immunisation campaigns and future vaccine development.