Second-Line Pharmaceutical Treatments for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Assessing the relative effectiveness and safety of additional treatments when metformin monotherapy is insufficient remains a limiting factor in improving treatment choices in type 2 diabetes. Objective: To determine whether data from electronic health records across the University of California Health system could be used to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety associated with 4 treatments in diabetes when added to metformin monotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, new user, multidimensional propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study with leave-one-medical-center-out (LOMCO) sensitivity analysis used principles of emulating target trial. Participants included patients with diabetes receiving metformin who were then additionally prescribed either a sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4I), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2I), or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1RA) for the first time and followed-up over a 5-year monitoring period. Data were analyzed between January 2022 and April 2023. Exposure: Treatment with sulfonylurea, DPP4I, SGLT2I, or GLP1RA added to metformin monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main effectiveness outcome was the ability of patients to maintain glycemic control, represented as time to metabolic failure (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≥7.0%). A secondary effectiveness outcome was assessed by monitoring time to new incidence of any of 28 adverse outcomes, including diabetes-related complications while treated with the assigned drug. Sensitivity analysis included LOMCO. Results: This cohort study included 31 852 patients (16 635 [52.2%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.4 [12.6] years) who were new users of diabetes treatments added on to metformin monotherapy. Compared with sulfonylurea in random-effect meta-analysis, treatment with SGLT2I (summary hazard ratio [sHR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.83]; I2 = 37.5%), DPP4I (sHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75-0.84]; I2 = 0%), GLP1RA (sHR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.57-0.68]; I2 = 23.6%) were effective in glycemic control; findings from LOMCO sensitivity analysis were similar. Treatment with SGLT2I showed no significant difference in effectiveness compared with GLP1RA (sHR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.12-1.42]; I2 = 47.3%; no LOMCO) or DPP4I (sHR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04]; I2 = 0%). Patients treated with DPP4I and SGLT2I had fewer cardiovascular events compared with those treated with sulfonylurea (DPP4I: sHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.74-0.96]; I2 = 0%; SGLT2I: sHR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.98]; I2 = 0%). Patients treated with a GLP1RA or SGLT2I were less likely to develop chronic kidney disease (GLP1RA: sHR, 0.75 [95% CI 0.6-0.94]; I2 = 0%; SGLT2I: sHR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.97]; I2 = 0%), kidney failure (GLP1RA: sHR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; I2 = 9.1%; SGLT2I: sHR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.88]; I2 = 0%), or hypertension (GLP1RA: sHR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68-0.97]; I2 = 0%; SGLT2I: sHR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.92]; I2 = 38.5%) compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea. Patients treated with an SGLT2I, vs a DPP4I, GLP1RA, or sulfonylurea, were less likely to develop indicators of chronic hepatic dysfunction (sHR vs DPP4I, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.95]; I2 = 0%; sHR vs GLP1RA, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.48-0.91]; I2 = 0%; sHR vs sulfonylurea, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.81]; I2 = 0%), and those treated with a DPP4I were less likely to develop new incidence of hypoglycemia (sHR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.36-0.65]; I2 = 22.7%) compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings highlight familiar medication patterns, including those mirroring randomized clinical trials, as well as providing new insights underscoring the value of robust clinical data analytics in swiftly generating evidence to help guide treatment choices in diabetes.

Real-world performance of SARS-Cov-2 serology tests in the United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation. METHODS: Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters. RESULTS: A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets. CONCLUSION: Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Real-world utilization of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing in RNA positive patients across the United States.

BACKGROUND: As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States. METHODS: Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets-limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources-a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.

University of California, Irvine-Pathology Extraction Pipeline: the pathology extraction pipeline for information extraction from pathology reports.

We describe Pathology Extraction Pipeline (PEP)--a new Open Health Natural Language Processing pipeline that we have developed for information extraction from pathology reports, with the goal of populating the extracted data into a research data warehouse. Specifically, we have built upon Medical Knowledge Analysis Tool pipeline (MedKATp), which is an extraction framework focused on pathology reports. Our particular contributions include additional customization and development on MedKATp to extract data elements and relationships from cancer pathology reports in richer detail than at present, an abstraction layer that provides significantly easier configuration of MedKATp for extraction tasks, and a machine-learning-based approach that makes the extraction more resilient to deviations from the common reporting format in a pathology reports corpus. We present experimental results demonstrating the effectiveness of our pipeline for information extraction in a real-world task, demonstrating performance improvement due to our approach for increasing extractor resilience to format deviation, and finally demonstrating the scalability of the pipeline across pathology reports for different cancer types.

pSCANNER: patient-centered Scalable National Network for Effectiveness Research.

This article describes the patient-centered Scalable National Network for Effectiveness Research (pSCANNER), which is part of the recently formed PCORnet, a national network composed of learning healthcare systems and patient-powered research networks funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). It is designed to be a stakeholder-governed federated network that uses a distributed architecture to integrate data from three existing networks covering over 21 million patients in all 50 states: (1) VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI), with data from Veteran Health Administration's 151 inpatient and 909 ambulatory care and community-based outpatient clinics; (2) the University of California Research exchange (UC-ReX) network, with data from UC Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego; and (3) SCANNER, a consortium of UCSD, Tennessee VA, and three federally qualified health systems in the Los Angeles area supplemented with claims and health information exchange data, led by the University of Southern California. Initial use cases will focus on three conditions: (1) congestive heart failure; (2) Kawasaki disease; (3) obesity. Stakeholders, such as patients, clinicians, and health service researchers, will be engaged to prioritize research questions to be answered through the network. We will use a privacy-preserving distributed computation model with synchronous and asynchronous modes. The distributed system will be based on a common data model that allows the construction and evaluation of distributed multivariate models for a variety of statistical analyses.

Pains and palliation in distributed research networks: lessons from the field.

Large-scale comparative effectiveness research studies require detailed clinical data collected across disparate clinical practice settings and institutions. Distributed research networks (DRNs) have been promoted as one approach to wide-scale data sharing that enables data sharing organizations to retain local data ownership and access control. Despite significant investments in distributed data sharing technologies, clinical research networks using distributed methods remain difficult to implement due to a broad range of organizational and technical barriers. The panelists represent four different research networks are in different stages of implementation maturity and are leveraging different informatics technologies. Challenges common to all DRNs include governance, semantic interoperability, and identity management. This panel will describe some of the critical challenges and experimental solutions to implementing, expanding, and sustaining DRNs. Each panelist will focus on a specific challenge that requires new informatics tools to reduce barriers to participation and data sharing.

A system architecture for sharing de-identified, research-ready brain scans and health information across clinical imaging centers.

Progress in our understanding of brain disorders increasingly relies on the costly collection of large standardized brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data sets. Moreover, the clinical interpretation of brain scans benefits from compare and contrast analyses of scans from patients with similar, and sometimes rare, demographic, diagnostic, and treatment status. A solution to both needs is to acquire standardized, research-ready clinical brain scans and to build the information technology infrastructure to share such scans, along with other pertinent information, across hospitals. This paper describes the design, deployment, and operation of a federated imaging system that captures and shares standardized, de-identified clinical brain images in a federation across multiple institutions. In addition to describing innovative aspects of the system architecture and our initial testing of the deployed infrastructure, we also describe the Standardized Imaging Protocol (SIP) developed for the project and our interactions with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) regarding handling patient data in the federated environment.