Development and Validation of the Radiology Common Data Model (R-CDM) for the International Standardization of Medical Imaging Data

Purpose@#Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), a standard file format for medical imaging data, contains metadata describing each file. However, metadata are often incomplete, and there is no standardized format for recording metadata, leading to inefficiency during the metadata-based data retrieval process. Here, we propose a novel standardization method for DICOM metadata termed the Radiology Common Data Model (R-CDM). @*Materials and Methods@#R-CDM was designed to be compatible with Health Level Seven International (HL7)/Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) and linked with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP)-CDM to achieve a seamless link between clinical data and medical imaging data. The terminology system was standardized using the RadLex playbook, a comprehensive lexicon of radiology. As a proof of concept, the R-CDM conversion process was conducted with 41.7 TB of data from the Ajou University Hospital. The R-CDM database visualizer was developed to visualize the main characteristics of the R-CDM database. @*Results@#Information from 2801360 cases and 87203226 DICOM files was organized into two tables constituting the R-CDM. Information on imaging device and image resolution was recorded with more than 99.9% accuracy. Furthermore, OMOP-CDM and RCDM were linked to efficiently extract specific types of images from specific patient cohorts. @*Conclusion@#R-CDM standardizes the structure and terminology for recording medical imaging data to eliminate incomplete and unstandardized information. Successful standardization was achieved by the extract, transform, and load process and image classifier. We hope that the R-CDM will contribute to deep learning research in the medical imaging field by enabling the securement of large-scale medical imaging data from multinational institutions.

Perceived Risk of Re-Identification in OMOP-CDM Database: A CrossSectional Survey

Background@#The advancement of information technology has immensely increased the quality and volume of health data. This has led to an increase in observational study, as well as to the threat of privacy invasion. Recently, a distributed research network based on the common data model (CDM) has emerged, enabling collaborative international medical research without sharing patient-level data. Although the CDM database for each institution is built inside a firewall, the risk of re-identification requires management. Hence, this study aims to elucidate the perceptions CDM users have towards CDM and risk management for re-identification. @*Methods@#The survey, targeted to answer specific in-depth questions on CDM, was conducted from October to November 2020. We targeted well-experienced researchers who actively use CDM. Basic statistics (total number and percent) were computed for all covariates. @*Results@#There were 33 valid respondents. Of these, 43.8% suggested additional anonymization was unnecessary beyond, “minimum cell count” policy, which obscures a cell with a value lower than certain number (usually 5) in shared results to minimize the liability of re-identification due to rare conditions. During extract-transform-load processes, 81.8% of respondents assumed structured data is under control from the risk of re-identification. However, respondents noted that date of birth and death were highly re-identifiable information. The majority of respondents (n = 22, 66.7%) conceded the possibility of identifier-contained unstructured data in the NOTE table. @*Conclusion@#Overall, CDM users generally attributed high reliability for privacy protection to the intrinsic nature of CDM. There was little demand for additional de-identification methods. However, unstructured data in the CDM were suspected to have risks. The necessity for a coordinating consortium to define and manage the re-identification risk of CDM was urged.

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.

COVID-19 International Collaborative Research by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Using Its Nationwide Real-world Data: Database, Outcomes, and Implications / 예방의학회지

This article aims to introduce the inception and operation of the COVID-19 International Collaborative Research Project, the world’s first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) open data project for research, along with its dataset and research method, and to discuss relevant considerations for collaborative research using nationwide real-world data (RWD). COVID-19 has spread across the world since early 2020, becoming a serious global health threat to life, safety, and social and economic activities. However, insufficient RWD from patients was available to help clinicians efficiently diagnose and treat patients with COVID-19, or to provide necessary information to the government for policy-making. Countries that saw a rapid surge of infections had to focus on leveraging medical professionals to treat patients, and the circumstances made it even more difficult to promptly use COVID-19 RWD. Against this backdrop, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) of Korea decided to open its COVID-19 RWD collected through Korea’s universal health insurance program, under the title of the COVID-19 International Collaborative Research Project. The dataset, consisting of 476 508 claim statements from 234 427 patients (7590 confirmed cases) and 18 691 318 claim statements of the same patients for the previous 3 years, was established and hosted on HIRA’s in-house server. Researchers who applied to participate in the project uploaded analysis code on the platform prepared by HIRA, and HIRA conducted the analysis and provided outcome values. As of November 2020, analyses have been completed for 129 research projects, which have been published or are in the process of being published in prestigious journals.

Incorporation of Korean Electronic Data Interchange Vocabulary into Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Vocabulary / 대한의료정보학회지

Objectives@#We incorporated the Korean Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) vocabulary into Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) vocabulary using a semi-automated process. The goal of this study was to improve the Korean EDI as a standard medical ontology in Korea. @*Methods@#We incorporated the EDI vocabulary into OMOP vocabulary through four main steps. First, we improved the current classification of EDI domains and separated medical services into procedures and measurements. Second, each EDI concept was assigned a unique identifier and validity dates. Third, we built a vertical hierarchy between EDI concepts, fully describing child concepts through relationships and attributes and linking them to parent terms. Finally, we added an English definition for each EDI concept. We translated the Korean definitions of EDI concepts using Google.Cloud.Translation.V3, using a client library and manual translation. We evaluated the EDI using 11 auditing criteria for controlled vocabularies. @*Results@#We incorporated 313,431 concepts from the EDI to the OMOP Standardized Vocabularies. For 10 of the 11 auditing criteria, EDI showed a better quality index within the OMOP vocabulary than in the original EDI vocabulary. @*Conclusions@#The incorporation of the EDI vocabulary into the OMOP Standardized Vocabularies allows better standardization to facilitate network research. Our research provides a promising model for mapping Korean medical information into a global standard terminology system, although a comprehensive mapping of official vocabulary remains to be done in the future.

Characteristics, outcomes, and mortality amongst 133,589 patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases diagnosed with, and 48,418 hospitalised for COVID-19: a multinational distributed network cohort analysis

ObjectivePatients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. DesignMultinational network cohort study SettingElectronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (NYC, United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea). ParticipantsAll patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included. Main outcome measures30-day complications during hospitalisation and death ResultsWe studied 133,589 patients diagnosed and 48,418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. The majority of participants were female (60.5% to 65.9%) and aged [≥]50 years. The most prevalent autoimmune conditions were psoriasis (3.5 to 32.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (3.9 to 18.9%), and vasculitis (3.3 to 17.6%). Amongst hospitalised patients, Type 1 diabetes was the most common autoimmune condition (4.8% to 7.5%) in US databases, rheumatoid arthritis in HIRA (18.9%), and psoriasis in SIDIAP-H (26.4%). Compared to 70,660 hospitalised 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% to 4.3% versus 6.3% to 24.6%). ConclusionsPatients with autoimmune diseases had high rates of respiratory complications and 30-day mortality following a hospitalization with COVID-19. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. Future studies should investigate predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune diseases. What is already known about this topicO_LIPatients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications. C_LIO_LIThere is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions. C_LI What this study addsO_LIMost people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities. C_LIO_LIPatients who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had prevalent autoimmune diseases had higher prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes as compared to those with prevalent autoimmune diseases who were diagnosed with COVID-19. C_LIO_LIA variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases. C_LIO_LIFor people with autoimmune diseases, COVID-19 hospitalisation was associated with worse outcomes and 30-day mortality compared to admission with influenza in the 2017-2018 season. C_LI

Baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes of 55,270 children and adolescents diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 with influenza in France, Germany, Spain, South Korea and the United States: an international network cohort study

ObjectivesTo characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children/adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19. Secondly, to describe health outcomes amongst children/adolescents diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza. DesignInternational network cohort. SettingReal-world data from European primary care records (France/Germany/Spain), South Korean claims and US claims and hospital databases. ParticipantsDiagnosed and/or hospitalized children/adolescents with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020; diagnosed with influenza in 2017-2018. Main outcome measuresBaseline demographics and comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), and death. ResultsA total of 55,270 children/adolescents diagnosed and 3,693 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were all more common among those hospitalized vs diagnosed with COVID-19. The most common COVID-19 symptom was fever. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%), and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8% to 37.6%), famotidine (9.0% to 28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0% to 21.4%), heparin (2.2% to 18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8% to 14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort, with undetectable (N<5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia, ARDS, and MIS-C were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. ConclusionsDespite negligible fatality, complications including pneumonia, ARDS and MIS-C were more frequent in children/adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differential diagnosis. A wide range of medications were used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19. What is already known on this topic?O_LIMost of the early COVID-19 studies were targeted at adult patients, and data concerning children and adolescents are limited. C_LIO_LIClinical manifestations of COVID-19 are generally milder in the pediatric population compared with adults. C_LIO_LIHospitalization for COVID-19 affects mostly infants, toddlers, and children with pre-existing comorbidities. C_LI What this study adds This study comprehensively characterizes a large international cohort of pediatric COVID-19 patients, and almost 2 million with previous seasonal influenza across 5 countries. Although uncommon, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) were more frequent in children and adolescents diagnosed with COVID-19 than in those with seasonal influenza. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19, and could help to differentiate pediatric COVID-19 from influenza. A plethora of medications were used during the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents, with great heterogeneity in the use of antiviral therapies as well as of adjunctive therapies.

Baseline phenotype and 30-day outcomes of people tested for COVID-19: an international network cohort including >3.32 million people tested with real-time PCR and >219,000 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in South Korea, Spain and the United States

Early identification of symptoms and comorbidities most predictive of COVID-19 is critical to identify infection, guide policies to effectively contain the pandemic, and improve health systems response. Here, we characterised socio-demographics and comorbidity in 3,316,107persons tested and 219,072 persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020, and their key health outcomes in the month following the first positive test. Routine care data from primary care electronic health records (EHR) from Spain, hospital EHR from the United States (US), and claims data from South Korea and the US were used. The majority of study participants were women aged 18-65 years old. Positive/tested ratio varied greatly geographically (2.2:100 to 31.2:100) and over time (from 50:100 in February-April to 6.8:100 in May-June). Fever, cough and dyspnoea were the most common symptoms at presentation. Between 4%-38% required admission and 1-10.5% died within a month from their first positive test. Observed disparity in testing practices led to variable baseline characteristics and outcomes, both nationally (US) and internationally. Our findings highlight the importance of large scale characterization of COVID-19 international cohorts to inform planning and resource allocation including testing as countries face a second wave.

Can we trust the prediction model? Demonstrating the importance of external validation by investigating the COVID-19 Vulnerability (C-19) Index across an international network of observational healthcare datasets

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is straining healthcare systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate between patients requiring hospitalization and those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool and has not been externally validated. MethodsWe followed the OHDSI framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 model. We evaluated the model on two different target populations: i) 41,381 patients that have SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency room visit and ii) 9,429,285 patients that have influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency room visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0 to 30 days. In total we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the US, Europe, Australia and Asia. FindingsThe internal validation performance of the C-19 index was a c-statistic of 0.73 and calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data the model obtained c-statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US and South Korean datasets respectively. The calibration was poor with the model under-estimating risk. When validated on 12 datasets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network the c-statistics ranged between 0.40-0.68. InterpretationThe results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 model is low for influenza cohorts, and even worse amongst COVID-19 patients in the US, Spain and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19: a multinational open science cohort study

IntroductionAngiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could influence infection risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Observational studies to date lack pre-specification, transparency, rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalizability, with contradictory results. MethodsUsing electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Department of Veterans Affairs), we conducted a systematic cohort study with prevalent ACE, ARB, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and thiazide diuretic (THZ) users to determine relative risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and related hospitalization outcomes. The study addressed confounding through large-scale propensity score adjustment and negative control experiments. ResultsFollowing over 1.1 million antihypertensive users identified between November 2019 and January 2020, we observed no significant difference in relative COVID-19 diagnosis risk comparing ACE/ARB vs CCB/THZ monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI 0.84 - 1.14), nor any difference for mono/combination use (1.01; 0.90 - 1.15). ACE alone and ARB alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared to CCB/THZ monotherapy or mono/combination use. Directly comparing ACE vs. ARB demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACE, non-significant for monotherapy (0.85; 0.69 - 1.05) and marginally significant for mono/combination users (0.88; 0.79 - 0.99). We observed, however, no significant difference between drug-classes for COVID-19 hospitalization or pneumonia risk across all comparisons. ConclusionThere is no clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization with ACE or ARB use. Users should not discontinue or change their treatment to avoid COVID-19.

Seek COVER: Development and validation of a personalized risk calculator for COVID-19 outcomes in an international network

ObjectiveTo develop and externally validate COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patients risk of hospital admission (COVER-H), requiring intensive services (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis. MethodsWe analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries. We developed and validated 3 scores using 6,869,127 patients with a general practice, emergency room, or outpatient visit with diagnosed influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The scores were validated on patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across five databases from South Korea, Spain and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death iii) death in the 30 days after index date. ResultsOverall, 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 high performance in influenza. When transported to COVID-19 cohorts, the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69-0.81, COVER-I: 0.73-0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72-0.90. Calibration was overall acceptable. ConclusionsA 9-predictor model performs well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services and fatality. The models could aid in providing reassurance for low risk patients and shield high risk patients from COVID-19 during de-confinement to reduce the virus impact on morbidity and mortality.

An international characterisation of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and a comparison with those previously hospitalised with influenza

BackgroundIn this study we phenotyped individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in depth, summarising entire medical histories, including medications, as captured in routinely collected data drawn from databases across three continents. We then compared individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 to those previously hospitalised with influenza. MethodsWe report demographics, previously recorded conditions and medication use of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the US (Columbia University Irving Medical Center [CUIMC], Premier Healthcare Database [PHD], UCHealth System Health Data Compass Database [UC HDC], and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA OMOP]), in South Korea (Health Insurance Review & Assessment [HIRA]), and Spain (The Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP] and HM Hospitales [HM]). These patients were then compared with patients hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19. Results34,128 (US: 8,362, South Korea: 7,341, Spain: 18,425) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 were included. Between 4,811 (HM) and 11,643 (CUIMC) unique aggregate characteristics were extracted per patient, with all summarised in an accompanying interactive website (http://evidence.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationHospitalization/). Patients were majority male in the US (CUIMC: 52%, PHD: 52%, UC HDC: 54%, VA OMOP: 94%,) and Spain (SIDIAP: 54%, HM: 60%), but were predominantly female in South Korea (HIRA: 60%). Age profiles varied across data sources. Prevalence of asthma ranged from 4% to 15%, diabetes from 13% to 43%, and hypertensive disorder from 24% to 70% across data sources. Between 14% and 33% were taking drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system in the 30 days prior to hospitalisation. Compared to 81,596 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, patients admitted with COVID-19 were more typically male, younger, and healthier, with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. ConclusionsWe provide a detailed characterisation of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Protecting groups known to be vulnerable to influenza is a useful starting point to minimize the number of hospital admissions needed for COVID-19. However, such strategies will also likely need to be broadened so as to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals hospitalised with COVID-19.

Safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, in light of rapid wide-spread use for COVID-19: a multinational, network cohort and self-controlled case series study

BackgroundHydroxychloroquine has recently received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and is currently prescribed in combination with azithromycin for COVID-19 pneumonia. We studied the safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin. MethodsNew user cohort studies were conducted including 16 severe adverse events (SAEs). Rheumatoid arthritis patients aged 18+ and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared to those initiating sulfasalazine and followed up over 30 days. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) were conducted to further establish safety in wider populations. Separately, SAEs associated with hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin (compared to hydroxychloroquine-amoxicillin) were studied. Data comprised 14 sources of claims data or electronic medical records from Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, UK, and USA. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (CalHRs) according to drug use. Estimates were pooled where I2<40%. ResultsOverall, 956,374 and 310,350 users of hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine, and 323,122 and 351,956 users of hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine-amoxicillin were included. No excess risk of SAEs was identified when 30-day hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were compared. SCCS confirmed these findings. However, when azithromycin was added to hydroxychloroquine, we observed an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (CalHR2.19 [1.22-3.94]), chest pain/angina (CalHR 1.15 [95% CI 1.05-1.26]), and heart failure (CalHR 1.22 [95% CI 1.02-1.45]) ConclusionsShort-term hydroxychloroquine treatment is safe, but addition of azithromycin may induce heart failure and cardiovascular mortality, potentially due to synergistic effects on QT length. We call for caution if such combination is to be used in the management of Covid-19. Trial registration numberRegistered with EU PAS; Reference number EUPAS34497 (http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=34498). The full study protocol and analysis source code can be found at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Covid19EstimationHydroxychloroquine. Funding sourcesThis research received partial support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and Senior Research Fellowship (DPA), US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, and by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [grant number: HI16C0992]. Personal funding included Versus Arthritis [21605] (JL), MRC-DTP [MR/K501256/1] (JL), MRC and FAME (APU). The European Health Data & Evidence Network has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 806968. The JU receives support from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. No funders had a direct role in this study. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Clinician Scientist Award programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health, England.

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES@#2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).@*METHODS@#Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.@*RESULTS@#A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97−1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87−1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95−1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01−1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01−1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.@*CONCLUSIONS@#There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: 2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).METHODS: Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.RESULTS: A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97−1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87−1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95−1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01−1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01−1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

Olmesartan is not associated with the risk of enteropathy: a Korean nationwide observational cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Olmesartan, a widely used angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), has been linked to sprue-like enteropathy. No cases of olmesartan-associated enteropathy have been reported in Northeast Asia. We investigated the associations between olmesartan and other ARBs and the incidence of enteropathy in Korea. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service to identify 108,559 patients (58,186 females) who were initiated on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), olmesartan, or other ARBs between January 2005 and December 2012. The incidences of enteropathy were compared among drug groups. Changes in body weight were compared after propensity score matching of patients in the ACEis and olmesartan groups. RESULTS: Among 108,559 patients, 31 patients were diagnosed with enteropathy. The incidences were 0.73, 0.24, and 0.37 per 1,000 persons, in the ACEis, olmesartan, and other ARBs groups, respectively. Adjusted rate ratios for enteropathy were: olmesartan, 0.33 (95% confidential interval [CI], 0.10 to 1.09; p = 0.070) and other ARBs, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.83; p = 0.017) compared to the ACEis group after adjustment for age, sex, income level, and various comorbidities. The post hoc analysis with matched cohorts revealed that the proportion of patients with significant weight loss did not differ between the ACEis and olmesartan groups. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan was not associated with intestinal malabsorption or significant body weight loss in the general Korean population. Additional large-scale prospective studies of the relationship between olmesartan and the incidence of enteropathy in the Asian population are needed.

Transvascular Implantation of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in a Patient Who has Undergone One-and-a-Half Ventricle Repair

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is acknowledged as a valid treatment method for the effective prevention of sudden cardiac death, which is a major cause of mortality in adult congenital heart disease patients. But ICD implantation by the conventional transvascular approach is not always possible in patients who have undergone palliative surgery due to congenital and structural heart disease. Here, we report a case in which an ICD was transvascularly implanted in an arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy patient who had undergone a one-and-a-half ventricle repair.