Patterns of red blood cell utilization: Harnessing electronic health records data from the Information Standard for Blood and Transplant (ISBT) 128 system within the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) initiative.

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

Bayesian safety surveillance with adaptive bias correction.

Postmarket safety surveillance is an integral part of mass vaccination programs. Typically relying on sequential analysis of real-world health data as they accrue, safety surveillance is challenged by sequential multiple testing and by biases induced by residual confounding in observational data. The current standard approach based on the maximized sequential probability ratio test (MaxSPRT) fails to satisfactorily address these practical challenges and it remains a rigid framework that requires prespecification of the surveillance schedule. We develop an alternative Bayesian surveillance procedure that addresses both aforementioned challenges using a more flexible framework. To mitigate bias, we jointly analyze a large set of negative control outcomes that are adverse events with no known association with the vaccines in order to inform an empirical bias distribution, which we then incorporate into estimating the effect of vaccine exposure on the adverse event of interest through a Bayesian hierarchical model. To address multiple testing and improve on flexibility, at each analysis timepoint, we update a posterior probability in favor of the alternative hypothesis that vaccination induces higher risks of adverse events, and then use it for sequential detection of safety signals. Through an empirical evaluation using six US observational healthcare databases covering more than 360 million patients, we benchmark the proposed procedure against MaxSPRT on testing errors and estimation accuracy, under two epidemiological designs, the historical comparator and the self-controlled case series. We demonstrate that our procedure substantially reduces Type 1 error rates, maintains high statistical power and fast signal detection, and provides considerably more accurate estimation than MaxSPRT. Given the extensiveness of the empirical study which yields more than 7 million sets of results, we present all results in a public R ShinyApp. As an effort to promote open science, we provide full implementation of our method in the open-source R package EvidenceSynthesis.

Impact of concomitant cardiovascular medications on overall survival in patients with liver cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVES OF THE ARTICLE: Liver cirrhosis is the end-stage liver disease associated with poor prognosis and cardiovascular comorbidity could significantly impact mortality of cirrhotic patients. We conducted a large, retrospective study to investigate the survival impact of cardiovascular co-medications in patients with liver cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A study-specific R package was processed on the local databases of partner institutions within the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics consortium, namely Columbia University, New York City (NYC), USA and Ajou University School of Medicine (AUSOM), South Korea. Patients with cirrhosis diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 were included. Final analysis of the anonymous survival data was performed at Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University. RESULTS: We investigated a total of 32,366 patients with liver cirrhosis. Our data showed that administration of antiarrhythmics amiodarone or digoxin presented as a negative prognostic indicator (p = 0.000 in both cohorts). Improved survival was associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril (p = 0.005 in NYC cohort, p = 0.075 in AUSOM cohort) and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan (p = 0.000 in NYC cohort, p = 0.005 in AUSOM cohort). Non-selective beta blocker carvedilol was associated with a survival advantage in the NYC (p = 0.000) cohort but not in the AUSOM cohort (p = 0.142). Patients who took platelet inhibitor clopidogrel had a prolonged overall survival compared to those without (p = 0.000 in NYC cohort, p = 0.003 in AUSOM cohort). CONCLUSION: Concomitant cardiovascular medications are associated with distinct survival difference in cirrhotic patients. Multidisciplinary management is needed for a judicious choice of proper cardiovascular co-medications in cirrhotic patients.

Efficacy of Co-Medications in Patients with Alcoholic Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is still increasing and leads to acute liver injury but also liver cirrhosis and subsequent complications such as liver failure or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). As most patients fail to achieve alcohol abstinence, it is essential to identify alternative treatment options in order to improve the outcome of ALD patients. METHODS: Evaluating two large cohorts of patients with ALD from the USA and Korea with a total of 12,006 patients, we investigated the effect on survival of aspirin, metformin, metoprolol, dopamine, and dobutamine drugs in patients with ALD between 2000 and 2020. Patient data were obtained through the "The Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics consortium," an open-source, multi-stakeholder, and interdisciplinary collaborative effort. RESULTS: The use of aspirin (p = 0.000, p = 0.000), metoprolol (p = 0.002, p = 0.000), and metformin (p = 0.000, p = 0.000) confers a survival benefit for both AUSOM- and NY-treated cohorts. Need of catecholamines dobutamine (p = 0.000, p = 0.000) and dopamine (p = 0.000, p = 0.000) was strongly indicative of poor survival. ß-Blocker treatment with metoprolol (p = 0.128, p = 0.196) or carvedilol (p = 0.520, p = 0.679) was not shown to be protective in any of the female subgroups. CONCLUSION: Overall, our data fill a large gap in long-term, real-world data on patients with ALD, confirming an impact of metformin, acetylsalicylic acid, and ß-blockers on ALD patient's survival. However, gender and ethnic background lead to diverse efficacy in those patients.

Seek COVER: using a disease proxy to rapidly develop and validate a personalized risk calculator for COVID-19 outcomes in an international network.

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 patient's 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.

Characteristics and outcomes of 627 044 COVID-19 patients living with and without obesity in the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status. RESULTS: We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity. CONCLUSION: We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies.

COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries.

OBJECTIVE: Patients 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: We 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%). CONCLUSION: Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

Feasibility and evaluation of a large-scale external validation approach for patient-level prediction in an international data network: validation of models predicting stroke in female patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: To demonstrate how the Observational Healthcare Data Science and Informatics (OHDSI) collaborative network and standardization can be utilized to scale-up external validation of patient-level prediction models by enabling validation across a large number of heterogeneous observational healthcare datasets. METHODS: Five previously published prognostic models (ATRIA, CHADS2, CHADS2VASC, Q-Stroke and Framingham) that predict future risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation were replicated using the OHDSI frameworks. A network study was run that enabled the five models to be externally validated across nine observational healthcare datasets spanning three countries and five independent sites. RESULTS: The five existing models were able to be integrated into the OHDSI framework for patient-level prediction and they obtained mean c-statistics ranging between 0.57-0.63 across the 6 databases with sufficient data to predict stroke within 1 year of initial atrial fibrillation diagnosis for females with atrial fibrillation. This was comparable with existing validation studies. The validation network study was run across nine datasets within 60 days once the models were replicated. An R package for the study was published at https://github.com/OHDSI/StudyProtocolSandbox/tree/master/ExistingStrokeRiskExternalValidation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the ability to scale up external validation of patient-level prediction models using a collaboration of researchers and a data standardization that enable models to be readily shared across data sites. External validation is necessary to understand the transportability or reproducibility of a prediction model, but without collaborative approaches it can take three or more years for a model to be validated by one independent researcher. In this paper we show it is possible to both scale-up and speed-up external validation by showing how validation can be done across multiple databases in less than 2 months. We recommend that researchers developing new prediction models use the OHDSI network to externally validate their models.

Markov modeling for cost-effectiveness using federated health data network.

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

Towards global model generalizability: independent cross-site feature evaluation for patient-level risk prediction models using the OHDSI network.

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

Similar Risk of Kidney Failure among Patients with Blinding Diseases Who Receive Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Bevacizumab: An Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Network Study.

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

Clinical Characterization of Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Undergoing Conservative Management: A PIONEER Analysis Based on Big Data.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent. CONCLUSIONS: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data. PATIENT SUMMARY: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis.

Comparative Effectiveness of Second-line Antihyperglycemic Agents for Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Large-scale, Multinational, Federated Analysis of the LEGEND-T2DM Study.

Background: SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their effectiveness relative to each other and other second-line antihyperglycemic agents is unknown, without any major ongoing head-to-head trials. Methods: Across the LEGEND-T2DM network, we included ten federated international data sources, spanning 1992-2021. We identified 1,492,855 patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) on metformin monotherapy who initiated one of four second-line agents (SGLT2is, GLP1-RAs, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor [DPP4is], sulfonylureas [SUs]). We used large-scale propensity score models to conduct an active comparator, target trial emulation for pairwise comparisons. After evaluating empirical equipoise and population generalizability, we fit on-treatment Cox proportional hazard models for 3-point MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, death) and 4-point MACE (3-point MACE + heart failure hospitalization) risk, and combined hazard ratio (HR) estimates in a random-effects meta-analysis. Findings: Across cohorts, 16·4%, 8·3%, 27·7%, and 47·6% of individuals with T2DM initiated SGLT2is, GLP1-RAs, DPP4is, and SUs, respectively. Over 5·2 million patient-years of follow-up and 489 million patient-days of time at-risk, there were 25,982 3-point MACE and 41,447 4-point MACE events. SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs were associated with a lower risk for 3-point MACE compared with DPP4is (HR 0·89 [95% CI, 0·79-1·00] and 0·83 [0·70-0·98]), and SUs (HR 0·76 [0·65-0·89] and 0·71 [0·59-0·86]). DPP4is were associated with a lower 3-point MACE risk versus SUs (HR 0·87 [0·79-0·95]). The pattern was consistent for 4-point MACE for the comparisons above. There were no significant differences between SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs for 3-point or 4-point MACE (HR 1·06 [0·96-1·17] and 1·05 [0·97-1·13]). Interpretation: In patients with T2DM and established CVD, we found comparable cardiovascular risk reduction with SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs, with both agents more effective than DPP4is, which in turn were more effective than SUs. These findings suggest that the use of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is should be prioritized as second-line agents in those with established CVD. Funding: National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Second-Line Antihyperglycemic Agents for Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Multinational, Federated Analysis of LEGEND-T2DM.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their effectiveness relative to each other and other second-line antihyperglycemic agents is unknown, without any major ongoing head-to-head clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the cardiovascular effectiveness of SGLT2is, GLP-1 RAs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), and clinical sulfonylureas (SUs) as second-line antihyperglycemic agents in T2DM. METHODS: Across the LEGEND-T2DM (Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation Across a Network of Databases for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) network, 10 federated international data sources were included, spanning 1992 to 2021. In total, 1,492,855 patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease (CVD) on metformin monotherapy were identified who initiated 1 of 4 second-line agents (SGLT2is, GLP-1 RAs, DPP4is, or SUs). Large-scale propensity score models were used to conduct an active-comparator target trial emulation for pairwise comparisons. After evaluating empirical equipoise and population generalizability, on-treatment Cox proportional hazards models were fit for 3-point MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and death) and 4-point MACE (3-point MACE plus heart failure hospitalization) risk and HR estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Over 5.2 million patient-years of follow-up and 489 million patient-days of time at risk, patients experienced 25,982 3-point MACE and 41,447 4-point MACE. SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs were associated with lower 3-point MACE risk than DPP4is (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.79-1.00] and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.70-0.98]) and SUs (HR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.65-0.89] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58-0.88]). DPP4is were associated with lower 3-point MACE risk than SUs (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95). The pattern for 3-point MACE was also observed for the 4-point MACE outcome. There were no significant differences between SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs for 3-point or 4-point MACE (HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.96-1.17] and 1.05 [95% CI: 0.97-1.13]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and CVD, comparable cardiovascular risk reduction was found with SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs, with both agents more effective than DPP4is, which in turn were more effective than SUs. These findings suggest that the use of SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs should be prioritized as second-line agents in those with established CVD.

Ranitidine Use and Incident Cancer in a Multinational Cohort.

Importance: Ranitidine, the most widely used histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), was withdrawn because of N-nitrosodimethylamine impurity in 2020. Given the worldwide exposure to this drug, the potential risk of cancer development associated with the intake of known carcinogens is an important epidemiological concern. Objective: To examine the comparative risk of cancer associated with the use of ranitidine vs other H2RAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This new-user active comparator international network cohort study was conducted using 3 health claims and 9 electronic health record databases from the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, South Korea, and Taiwan. Large-scale propensity score (PS) matching was used to minimize confounding of the observed covariates with negative control outcomes. Empirical calibration was performed to account for unobserved confounding. All databases were mapped to a common data model. Database-specific estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. Participants included individuals aged at least 20 years with no history of cancer who used H2RAs for more than 30 days from January 1986 to December 2020, with a 1-year washout period. Data were analyzed from April to September 2021. Exposure: The main exposure was use of ranitidine vs other H2RAs (famotidine, lafutidine, nizatidine, and roxatidine). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incidence of any cancer, except nonmelanoma skin cancer. Secondary outcomes included all cancer except thyroid cancer, 16 cancer subtypes, and all-cause mortality. Results: Among 1 183 999 individuals in 11 databases, 909 168 individuals (mean age, 56.1 years; 507 316 [55.8%] women) were identified as new users of ranitidine, and 274 831 individuals (mean age, 58.0 years; 145 935 [53.1%] women) were identified as new users of other H2RAs. Crude incidence rates of cancer were 14.30 events per 1000 person-years (PYs) in ranitidine users and 15.03 events per 1000 PYs among other H2RA users. After PS matching, cancer risk was similar in ranitidine compared with other H2RA users (incidence, 15.92 events per 1000 PYs vs 15.65 events per 1000 PYs; calibrated meta-analytic hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12). No significant associations were found between ranitidine use and any secondary outcomes after calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, ranitidine use was not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with the use of other H2RAs. Further research is needed on the long-term association of ranitidine with cancer development.

Multinational patterns of second line antihyperglycaemic drug initiation across cardiovascular risk groups: federated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM.

Objective: To assess the uptake of second line antihyperglycaemic drugs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are receiving metformin. Design: Federated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM. Setting: 10 US and seven non-US electronic health record and administrative claims databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network in eight countries from 2011 to the end of 2021. Participants: 4.8 million patients (≥18 years) across US and non-US based databases with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had received metformin monotherapy and had initiated second line treatments. Exposure: The exposure used to evaluate each database was calendar year trends, with the years in the study that were specific to each cohort. Main outcomes measures: The outcome was the incidence of second line antihyperglycaemic drug use (ie, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sulfonylureas) among individuals who were already receiving treatment with metformin. The relative drug class level uptake across cardiovascular risk groups was also evaluated. Results: 4.6 million patients were identified in US databases, 61 382 from Spain, 32 442 from Germany, 25 173 from the UK, 13 270 from France, 5580 from Scotland, 4614 from Hong Kong, and 2322 from Australia. During 2011-21, the combined proportional initiation of the cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) increased across all data sources, with the combined initiation of these drugs as second line drugs in 2021 ranging from 35.2% to 68.2% in the US databases, 15.4% in France, 34.7% in Spain, 50.1% in Germany, and 54.8% in Scotland. From 2016 to 2021, in some US and non-US databases, uptake of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased more significantly among populations with no cardiovascular disease compared with patients with established cardiovascular disease. No data source provided evidence of a greater increase in the uptake of these two drug classes in populations with cardiovascular disease compared with no cardiovascular disease. Conclusions: Despite the increase in overall uptake of cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs as second line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus, their uptake was lower in patients with cardiovascular disease than in people with no cardiovascular disease over the past decade. A strategy is needed to ensure that medication use is concordant with guideline recommendations to improve outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes-diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services-using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71-1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers-further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

DLMM as a lossless one-shot algorithm for collaborative multi-site distributed linear mixed models.

Linear mixed models are commonly used in healthcare-based association analyses for analyzing multi-site data with heterogeneous site-specific random effects. Due to regulations for protecting patients' privacy, sensitive individual patient data (IPD) typically cannot be shared across sites. We propose an algorithm for fitting distributed linear mixed models (DLMMs) without sharing IPD across sites. This algorithm achieves results identical to those achieved using pooled IPD from multiple sites (i.e., the same effect size and standard error estimates), hence demonstrating the lossless property. The algorithm requires each site to contribute minimal aggregated data in only one round of communication. We demonstrate the lossless property of the proposed DLMM algorithm by investigating the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and length of hospital stay in COVID-19 patients using administrative claims from the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database. We extend this association study by incorporating 120,609 COVID-19 patients from 11 collaborative data sources worldwide.

Alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostate hyperplasia patients : an international cohort study.

Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storms release. We conducted a prevalent-user active-comparator cohort study to assess association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes: diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services. Our study included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH therapy during the period between November 2019 and January 2020, found in electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We found no differential risk for any of COVID-19 outcome, pointing to the need for further research on potential COVID-19 therapies.