Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.

Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

Impact of European Union Label Changes for Fluoroquinolone-Containing Medicinal Products for Systemic and Inhalation Use: Post-Referral Prescribing Trends.

INTRODUCTION: Concerns of the persistence and severity of the adverse effects of fluoroquinolones, mainly involving the nervous system, muscles and joints, resulted in the 2018 referral procedure led by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). They advised to stop prescribing fluoroquinolones for infections of mild severity or of a presumed self-limiting course and for prevention of infections, plus to restrict prescriptions in cases of milder infections where other treatment options are available, and restrict in at-risk populations. We aimed to examine whether the impact of EMA regulatory interventions implemented throughout 2018-2019 had an impact on fluoroquinolone prescribing rates. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using electronic health care records from six European countries between 2016 and 2021. We analysed monthly incident fluoroquinolone use rates overall and for each fluoroquinolone active substance through flexible modelling via segmented regression to detect time points of trend changes, in monthly percentage change (MPC). RESULTS: The incidence of fluoroquinolone use ranged from 0.7 to 8.0/1000 persons per month over all calendar years. While changes in fluoroquinolone prescriptions were observed over time across countries, these were inconsistent and did not seem to be temporally related to EMA interventions (e.g., Belgium: February/May 2018, MPC - 33.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 35.9 to - 30.7; Germany: February/May 2019, MPC - 12.6%, 95% CI - 13.7 to - 11.6]; UK: January/April 2016, MPC - 4.9%, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 3.6). CONCLUSION: The regulatory action associated with the 2018 referral did not seem to have relevant effects on fluoroquinolone prescribing in primary care.

External validation of existing dementia prediction models on observational health data.

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

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.

Phenotype Algorithms for the Identification and Characterization of Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia in Real World Data: A Multinational Network Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) has been identified as a rare but serious adverse event associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we explored the pre-pandemic co-occurrence of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TWT) using 17 observational health data sources across the world. We applied multiple TWT definitions, estimated the background rate of TWT, characterized TWT patients, and explored the makeup of thrombosis types among TWT patients. METHODS: We conducted an international network retrospective cohort study using electronic health records and insurance claims data, estimating background rates of TWT amongst persons observed from 2017 to 2019. Following the principles of existing VITT clinical definitions, TWT was defined as patients with a diagnosis of embolic or thrombotic arterial or venous events and a diagnosis or measurement of thrombocytopenia within 7 days. Six TWT phenotypes were considered, which varied in the approach taken in defining thrombosis and thrombocytopenia in real world data. RESULTS: Overall TWT incidence rates ranged from 1.62 to 150.65 per 100,000 person-years. Substantial heterogeneity exists across data sources and by age, sex, and alternative TWT phenotypes. TWT patients were likely to be men of older age with various comorbidities. Among the thrombosis types, arterial thrombotic events were the most common. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that identifying VITT in observational data presents a substantial challenge, as implementing VITT case definitions based on the co-occurrence of TWT results in large and heterogeneous incidence rate and in a cohort of patints with baseline characteristics that are inconsistent with the VITT cases reported to date.

Logistic regression models for patient-level prediction based on massive observational data: Do we need all data?

OBJECTIVE: Provide guidance on sample size considerations for developing predictive models by empirically establishing the adequate sample size, which balances the competing objectives of improving model performance and reducing model complexity as well as computational requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We empirically assess the effect of sample size on prediction performance and model complexity by generating learning curves for 81 prediction problems (23 outcomes predicted in a depression cohort, 58 outcomes predicted in a hypertension cohort) in three large observational health databases, requiring training of 17,248 prediction models. The adequate sample size was defined as the sample size for which the performance of a model equalled the maximum model performance minus a small threshold value. RESULTS: The adequate sample size achieves a median reduction of the number of observations of 9.5%, 37.3%, 58.5%, and 78.5% for the thresholds of 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively. The median reduction of the number of predictors in the models was 8.6%, 32.2%, 48.2%, and 68.3% for the thresholds of 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively. DISCUSSION: Based on our results a conservative, yet significant, reduction in sample size and model complexity can be estimated for future prediction work. Though, if a researcher is willing to generate a learning curve a much larger reduction of the model complexity may be possible as suggested by a large outcome-dependent variability. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that in most cases only a fraction of the available data was sufficient to produce a model close to the performance of one developed on the full data set, but with a substantially reduced model complexity.

Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess how information from unstructured text is used to develop and validate clinical prognostic prediction models. We summarize the prediction problems and methodological landscape and determine whether using text data in addition to more commonly used structured data improves the prediction performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies that developed prognostic prediction models using information extracted from unstructured text in a data-driven manner, published in the period from January 2005 to March 2021. Data items were extracted, analyzed, and a meta-analysis of the model performance was carried out to assess the added value of text to structured-data models. RESULTS: We identified 126 studies that described 145 clinical prediction problems. Combining text and structured data improved model performance, compared with using only text or only structured data. In these studies, a wide variety of dense and sparse numeric text representations were combined with both deep learning and more traditional machine learning methods. External validation, public availability, and attention for the explainability of the developed models were limited. CONCLUSION: The use of unstructured text in the development of prognostic prediction models has been found beneficial in addition to structured data in most studies. The text data are source of valuable information for prediction model development and should not be neglected. We suggest a future focus on explainability and external validation of the developed models, promoting robust and trustworthy prediction models in clinical practice.

Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to provide further insights into the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation over time. We focus on assessing the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies that developed 1 or more multivariable prognostic prediction models using electronic health record (EHR) data published in the period 2009-2019. RESULTS: We identified 422 studies that developed a total of 579 clinical prediction models using EHR data. We observed a steep increase over the years in the number of developed models. The percentage of models externally validated in the same paper remained at around 10%. Throughout 2009-2019, for both the target population and the outcome definitions, code lists were provided for less than 20% of the models. For about half of the models that were developed using regression analysis, the final model was not completely presented. DISCUSSION: Overall, we observed limited improvement over time in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation. In particular, the prediction problem definition was often not clearly reported, and the final model was often not completely presented. CONCLUSION: Improvement in the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators is still urgently needed to increase clinical adoption of developed models.

Female Reproductive Performance and Maternal Birth Month: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Exploring Multiple Seasonal Mechanisms.

Globally, maternal birth season affects fertility later in life. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to comprehensively investigate the birth season and female fertility relationship. Using PubMed, we identified a set of 282 relevant fertility/birth season papers published between 1972 and 2018. We screened all 282 studies and removed 131 non-mammalian species studies on fertility and 122 studies that were on non-human mammals. Our meta-analysis focused on the remaining 29 human studies, including twelve human datasets from around the world (USA, Europe, Asia). The main outcome was change in female fertility as observed by maternal birth month and whether this change was correlated with either temperature or rainfall. We found that temperature was either strongly correlated or anti-correlated in studies, indicating that another factor closely tied to temperature may be the culprit exposure. We found that rainfall only increases fertility in higher altitude locations (New Zealand, Romania, and Northern Vietnam). This suggests the possibility of a combined or multi-factorial mechanism underlying the female fertility - birth season relationship. We discuss other environmental and sociological factors on the birth season - female fertility relationship. Future research should focus on the role of birth season and female fertility adjusting for additional factors that modulate female fertility as discussed in this comprehensive review.

Opioid use, postoperative complications, and implant survival after unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: a population-based network study.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty around whether to use unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or total knee replacement (TKR) for individuals with osteoarthritis confined to a single compartment of the knee. We aimed to emulate the design of the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) using routinely collected data to assess whether the efficacy results reported in the trial translate into effectiveness in routine practice, and to assess comparative safety. METHODS: We did a population-based network study using data from four US and one UK health-care database, part of the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network. The inclusion criteria were the same as those for TOPKAT; briefly, we identified patients aged at least 40 years with osteoarthritis who had undergone UKR or TKR and who had available data for at least one year prior to surgery. Patients were excluded if they had evidence of previous knee arthroplasty, knee fracture, knee surgery (except diagnostic), rheumatoid arthritis, infammatory arthropathies, or septic arthritis. Opioid use from 91-365 days after surgery, as a proxy for persistent pain, was assessed for all participants in all databases. Postoperative complications (ie, venous thromboembolism, infection, readmission, and mortality) were assessed over the 60 days after surgery and implant survival (as measured by revision procedures) was assessed over the 5 years after surgery. Outcomes were assessed in all databases, except for readmission, which was assessed in three of the databases, and mortality, which was assessed in two of the databases. Propensity score matched Cox proportional hazards models were fitted for each outcome. Calibrated hazard ratios (cHRs) were generated for each database to account for observed differences in control outcomes, and cHRs were then combined using meta-analysis. FINDINGS: 33 867 individuals who received UKR and 557 831 individuals who received TKR between Jan 1, 2005, and April 30, 2018, were eligible for matching. 32 379 with UKR and 250 377 with TKR were propensity score matched and informed the analyses. UKR was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative opioid use (cHR from meta-analysis 0·81, 95% CI 0·73-0·90) and a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism (0·62, 0·36-0·95), whereas no difference was seen for infection (0·85, 0·51-1·37) and readmission (0·79, 0·47-1·25). Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether there was a reduction in risk of mortality. UKR was also associated with an increased risk of revision (1·64, 1·40-1·94). INTERPRETATION: UKR was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative opioid use compared with TKR, which might indicate a reduced risk of persistent pain after surgery. UKR was associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism but an increased risk of revision compared with TKR. These findings can help to inform shared decision making for individuals eligible for knee replacement surgery. FUNDING: EU/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations Innovative Medicines Initiative (2) Joint Undertaking (EHDEN).