Prognostic Factors of COVID-19: An Umbrella Review Endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the urgency for updated evidence to inform public health and clinical care placed systematic literature reviews (SLRs) at the cornerstone of research. We aimed to summarize evidence on prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes through published SLRs and to critically assess quality elements in the findings' interpretation. An umbrella review was conducted via electronic databases from January 2020 to April 2022. All SLRs (and meta-analyses) in English were considered. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess SLR quality. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD4202232576). Out of 4,564 publications, 171 SLRs were included of which 3 were umbrella reviews. Our primary analysis included 35 SLRs published in 2022, which incorporated studies since the beginning of the pandemic. Consistent findings showed that, for adults, older age, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer were more strongly predictive of risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality due to COVID-19. Male sex was associated with higher risk of short-term adverse outcomes, but female sex was associated with higher risk of long COVID. For children, socioeconomic determinants that may unravel COVID-19 disparities were rarely reported. This review highlights key prognostic factors of COVID-19, which can help clinicians and health officers identify high-risk groups for optimal care. Findings can also help optimize confounding adjustment and patient phenotyping in comparative effectiveness research. A living SLR approach may facilitate dissemination of new findings. This paper is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

Real-World Evidence Prediction of a Phase IV Oncology Trial: Comparative Degarelix vs Leuprolide Safety.

BACKGROUND: Medical and regulatory communities are increasingly interested in the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) for answering questions pertaining to drug safety and effectiveness but concerns about validity remain. A principled approach to conducting RWE studies may alleviate concerns and increase confidence in findings. This study sought to predict the findings from the PRONOUNCE trial using a principled approach to generating RWE. METHODS: This propensity-score (PS) matched observational cohort study utilized 3 claims databases to compare the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among initiators of degarelix vs. leuprolide. Patients were included if they had history of prostate cancer and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Subjects were excluded if they didn't have continuous database enrollment in the year prior to treatment initiation, were exposed to androgen deprivation therapy or experienced an acute cardiovascular event within 30 days prior to treatment initiation, or had a history or risk factors of QT prolongation. RESULTS: There were 12,448 leuprolide and 1,969 degarelix study-eligible patients before matching, with 1,887 in each arm after PS-matching. The results for MACE comparing degarelix to leuprolide in the observational analysis (hazard ratio= 1.35; 95% confidence interval = 0.94-1.93) was consistent with the subsequently released PRONOUNCE result (hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval = 0.59-2.79). CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully predicted the result of a comparative cardiovascular safety trial in the oncology setting. Although the findings are encouraging, limitations of measuring cancer stage and tumor progression are representative of challenges in attempting to generalize whether claims-based RWE can be used as actionable evidence.

Cardiovascular and Mortality Risk with Intravitreal Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cardiovascular (CV) safety associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IAVIs) in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR). DESIGN: Population-based cohort study using Medicare and 2 commercial insurance claims databases in the United States from January 2009 to December 2017. SUBJECTS: Patients with DR aged ≥ 18 years in whom treatment with either IVAIs or laser procedure or intravitreal steroid injections was initiated. METHODS: We estimated the propensity score (PS) using multivariable logistic regression models, including 85 baseline covariates and PS-matched patients in a 1:1 ratio. We estimated the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on prior history of CV events were also conducted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A composite CV outcome of myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, its individual components, and all-cause mortality in 180 and 365 days after treatment initiation. RESULTS: We identified 61 508 PS-matched patients in a 1:1 ratio in whom either IVAIs or laser or steroid treatment was initiated. Compared with laser or steroid treatment, IAVIs were not associated with an increased risk of the composite CV outcome (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.09), MI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.13), or stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.19) or the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.62) at 180 days of follow-up. At 365 days, the risk of the composite CV outcome, stroke, and MI remained similar between the 2 groups, although the risk of all-cause mortality was increased with IAVIs (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.60). The subgroup analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was increased in patients with a prior history of CV events. CONCLUSIONS: Among > 60 000 patients with DR, those who received IAVIs had a risk of CV events similar to those who received laser or steroid treatment. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients who received IAVIs for DR.