Real-world treatment trajectories of adults with newly diagnosed asthma or COPD.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge on how patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are globally treated in the real world, especially with regard to the initial pharmacological treatment of newly diagnosed patients and the different treatment trajectories. This knowledge is important to monitor and improve clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study aims to characterise treatments using data from four claims (drug dispensing) and four electronic health record (EHR; drug prescriptions) databases across six countries and three continents, encompassing 1.3 million patients with asthma or COPD. We analysed treatment trajectories at drug class level from first diagnosis and visualised these in sunburst plots. RESULTS: In four countries (USA, UK, Spain and the Netherlands), most adults with asthma initiate treatment with short-acting ß2 agonists monotherapy (20.8%-47.4% of first-line treatments). For COPD, the most frequent first-line treatment varies by country. The largest percentages of untreated patients (for asthma and COPD) were found in claims databases (14.5%-33.2% for asthma and 27.0%-52.2% for COPD) from the USA as compared with EHR databases (6.9%-15.2% for asthma and 4.4%-17.5% for COPD) from European countries. The treatment trajectories showed step-up as well as step-down in treatments. CONCLUSION: Real-world data from claims and EHRs indicate that first-line treatments of asthma and COPD vary widely across countries. We found evidence of a stepwise approach in the pharmacological treatment of asthma and COPD, suggesting that treatments may be tailored to patients' needs.

Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-National Collaboration of Regulatory Agencies from Canada, Europe, and United States.

Purpose: Few studies have examined how the absolute risk of thromboembolism with COVID-19 has evolved over time across different countries. Researchers from the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration established a collaboration to evaluate the absolute risk of arterial (ATE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the 90 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 in the ambulatory (eg, outpatient, emergency department, nursing facility) setting from seven countries across North America (Canada, US) and Europe (England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain) within periods before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability. Patients and Methods: We conducted cohort studies of patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting from the seven specified countries. Patients were followed for 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The primary outcomes were ATE and VTE over 90 days from diagnosis date. We measured country-level estimates of 90-day absolute risk (with 95% confidence intervals) of ATE and VTE. Results: The seven cohorts included 1,061,565 patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting before COVID-19 vaccines were available (through November 2020). The 90-day absolute risk of ATE during this period ranged from 0.11% (0.09-0.13%) in Canada to 1.01% (0.97-1.05%) in the US, and the 90-day absolute risk of VTE ranged from 0.23% (0.21-0.26%) in Canada to 0.84% (0.80-0.89%) in England. The seven cohorts included 3,544,062 patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (beginning December 2020). The 90-day absolute risk of ATE during this period ranged from 0.06% (0.06-0.07%) in England to 1.04% (1.01-1.06%) in the US, and the 90-day absolute risk of VTE ranged from 0.25% (0.24-0.26%) in England to 1.02% (0.99-1.04%) in the US. Conclusion: There was heterogeneity by country in 90-day absolute risk of ATE and VTE after ambulatory COVID-19 diagnosis both before and during COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care: room for improvement.

BACKGROUND: In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. RESULTS: In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). CONCLUSION: OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting.

Descriptive analysis on disproportionate medication errors and associated patient characteristics in the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors (MEs) are a major public health concern which can cause harm and financial burden within the healthcare system. Characterizing MEs is crucial to develop strategies to mitigate MEs in the future. OBJECTIVES: To characterize ME-associated reports, and investigate signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) on MEs in the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: FAERS data from 2004 to 2020 was used. ME reports were identified with the narrow Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities® (MedDRA®) Query (SMQ) for MEs. Drug names were converted to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification. SDRs were investigated using the reporting odds ratio (ROR). RESULTS: In total 488 470 ME reports were identified, mostly (59%) submitted by consumers and mainly (55%) associated with females. Median age at time of ME was 57 years (interquartile range: 37-70 years). Approximately 1 out of 3 reports stated a serious health outcome. The most prevalent reported drug class was "antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents" (25%). The most common ME type was "incorrect dose administered" (9%). Of the 1659 SDRs obtained, adalimumab was the most common drug associated with MEs, noting a ROR of 1.22 (95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.24). CONCLUSION: This study offers a first of its kind characterization of MEs as reported to FAERS. Reported MEs are frequent and may be associated with serious health outcomes. This FAERS data provides insights on ME prevention and offers possibilities for additional in-depth analyses.

Evaluating the impact of alternative phenotype definitions on incidence rates across a global data network.

Objective: Developing accurate phenotype definitions is critical in obtaining reliable and reproducible background rates in safety research. This study aims to illustrate the differences in background incidence rates by comparing definitions for a given outcome. Materials and Methods: We used 16 data sources to systematically generate and evaluate outcomes for 13 adverse events and their overall background rates. We examined the effect of different modifications (inpatient setting, standardization of code set, and code set changes) to the computable phenotype on background incidence rates. Results: Rate ratios (RRs) of the incidence rates from each computable phenotype definition varied across outcomes, with inpatient restriction showing the highest variation from 1 to 11.93. Standardization of code set RRs ranges from 1 to 1.64, and code set changes range from 1 to 2.52. Discussion: The modification that has the highest impact is requiring inpatient place of service, leading to at least a 2-fold higher incidence rate in the base definition. Standardization showed almost no change when using source code variations. The strength of the effect in the inpatient restriction is highly dependent on the outcome. Changing definitions from broad to narrow showed the most variability by age/gender/database across phenotypes and less than a 2-fold increase in rate compared to the base definition. Conclusion: Characterization of outcomes across a network of databases yields insights into sensitivity and specificity trade-offs when definitions are altered. Outcomes should be thoroughly evaluated prior to use for background rates for their plausibility for use across a global network.

Parasitic infections related to anti-type 2 immunity monoclonal antibodies: a disproportionality analysis in the food and drug administration's adverse event reporting system (FAERS).

Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting immunoglobulin E (IgE) [omalizumab], type 2 (T2) cytokine interleukin (IL) 5 [mepolizumab, reslizumab], IL-4 Receptor (R) α [dupilumab], and IL-5R [benralizumab]), improve quality of life in patients with T2-driven inflammatory diseases. However, there is a concern for an increased risk of helminth infections. The aim was to explore safety signals of parasitic infections for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and benralizumab. Methods: Spontaneous reports were used from the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2004 to 2021. Parasitic infections were defined as any type of parasitic infection term obtained from the Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities® (MedDRA®). Safety signal strength was assessed by the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR). Results: 15,502,908 reports were eligible for analysis. Amongst 175,888 reports for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and benralizumab, there were 79 reports on parasitic infections. Median age was 55 years (interquartile range 24-63 years) and 59.5% were female. Indications were known in 26 (32.9%) reports; 14 (53.8%) biologicals were reportedly prescribed for asthma, 8 (30.7%) for various types of dermatitis, and 2 (7.6%) for urticaria. A safety signal was observed for each biological, except for reslizumab (due to lack of power), with the strongest signal attributed to benralizumab (ROR = 15.7, 95% Confidence Interval: 8.4-29.3). Conclusion: Parasitic infections were disproportionately reported for mAbs targeting IgE, T2 cytokines, or T2 cytokine receptors. While the number of adverse event reports on parasitic infections in the database was relatively low, resulting safety signals were disproportionate and warrant further investigation.

European Health Data & Evidence Network-learnings from building out a standardized international health data network.

OBJECTIVE: Health data standardized to a common data model (CDM) simplifies and facilitates research. This study examines the factors that make standardizing observational health data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM successful. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five data partners (DPs) from 11 countries received funding from the European Health Data Evidence Network (EHDEN) to standardize their data. Three surveys, DataQualityDashboard results, and statistics from the conversion process were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Our measures of success were the total number of days to transform source data into the OMOP CDM and participation in network research. RESULTS: The health data converted to CDM represented more than 133 million patients. 100%, 88%, and 84% of DPs took Surveys 1, 2, and 3. The median duration of the 6 key extract, transform, and load (ETL) processes ranged from 4 to 115 days. Of the 25 DPs, 21 DPs were considered applicable for analysis of which 52% standardized their data on time, and 48% participated in an international collaborative study. DISCUSSION: This study shows that the consistent workflow used by EHDEN proves appropriate to support the successful standardization of observational data across Europe. Over the 25 successful transformations, we confirmed that getting the right people for the ETL is critical and vocabulary mapping requires specific expertise and support of tools. Additionally, we learned that teams that proactively prepared for data governance issues were able to avoid considerable delays improving their ability to finish on time. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance for future DPs to standardize to the OMOP CDM and participate in distributed networks. We demonstrate that the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics community must continue to evaluate and provide guidance and support for what ultimately develops the backbone of how community members generate evidence.

Transforming the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) in Catalonia to the OMOP Common Data Model and Its Use for COVID-19 Research.

Purpose: The primary aim of this work was to convert the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) from Catalonia, Spain, to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). Our second aim was to provide a descriptive analysis of COVID-19-related outcomes among the general population. Patients and Methods: We mapped patient-level data from SIDIAP to the OMOP CDM and we performed more than 3,400 data quality checks to assess its readiness for research. We established a general population cohort as of the 1st March 2020 and identified outpatient COVID-19 diagnoses or tested positive for, hospitalised with, admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with, died with, or vaccinated against COVID-19 up to 30th June 2022. Results: After verifying the high quality of the transformed dataset, we included 5,870,274 individuals in the general population cohort. Of those, 604,472 had either an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test result, 58,991 had a hospitalisation, 5,642 had an ICU admission, and 11,233 died with COVID-19. A total of 4,584,515 received a COVID-19 vaccine. People who were hospitalised or died were more commonly older, male, and with more comorbidities. Those admitted to ICU with COVID-19 were generally younger and more often male than those hospitalised and those who died. Conclusion: We successfully transformed SIDIAP to the OMOP CDM. From this dataset, a general population cohort of 5.9 million individuals was identified and their COVID-19-related outcomes over time were described. The transformed SIDIAP database is a valuable resource that can enable distributed network research in COVID-19 and beyond.

The added value of text from Dutch general practitioner notes in predictive modeling.

OBJECTIVE: This work aims to explore the value of Dutch unstructured data, in combination with structured data, for the development of prognostic prediction models in a general practitioner (GP) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We trained and validated prediction models for 4 common clinical prediction problems using various sparse text representations, common prediction algorithms, and observational GP electronic health record (EHR) data. We trained and validated 84 models internally and externally on data from different EHR systems. RESULTS: On average, over all the different text representations and prediction algorithms, models only using text data performed better or similar to models using structured data alone in 2 prediction tasks. Additionally, in these 2 tasks, the combination of structured and text data outperformed models using structured or text data alone. No large performance differences were found between the different text representations and prediction algorithms. DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate that the use of unstructured data alone can result in well-performing prediction models for some clinical prediction problems. Furthermore, the performance improvement achieved by combining structured and text data highlights the added value. Additionally, we demonstrate the significance of clinical natural language processing research in languages other than English and the possibility of validating text-based prediction models across various EHR systems. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the potential benefits of incorporating unstructured data in clinical prediction models in a GP setting. Although the added value of unstructured data may vary depending on the specific prediction task, our findings suggest that it has the potential to enhance patient care.

Challenges of Estimating Global Feature Importance in Real-World Health Care Data.

Feature importance is often used to explain clinical prediction models. In this work, we examine three challenges using experiments with electronic health record data: computational feasibility, choosing between methods, and interpretation of the resulting explanation. This work aims to create awareness of the disagreement between feature importance methods and underscores the need for guidance to practitioners how to deal with these discrepancies.

Does Using a Stacking Ensemble Method to Combine Multiple Base Learners Within a Database Improve Model Transportability?

We investigated a stacking ensemble method that combines multiple base learners within a database. The results on external validation across four large databases suggest a stacking ensemble could improve model transportability.

The DELPHI Library: Improving Model Validation, Transparency and Dissemination Through a Centralised Library of Prediction Models.

The Deposit, Evaluate and Lookup Predictive Healthcare Information (DELPHI) library provides a centralised location for the depositing, exploring and analysing of patient-level prediction models that are compatible with data mapped to the observational medical outcomes partnership common data model.

Characterising the treatment of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination in 4 European countries and the US: An international network cohort study.

Background: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been identified as a rare adverse event following some COVID-19 vaccines. Various guidelines have been issued on the treatment of TTS. We aimed to characterize the treatment of TTS and other thromboembolic events (venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) after COVID-19 vaccination and compared to historical (pre-vaccination) data in Europe and the US. Methods: We conducted an international network cohort study using 8 primary care, outpatient, and inpatient databases from France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, The United Kingdom, and The United States. We investigated treatment pathways after the diagnosis of TTS, VTE, or ATE for a pre-vaccination (background) cohort (01/2017-11/2020), and a vaccinated cohort of people followed for 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine recorded from 12/2020 onwards). Results: Great variability was observed in the proportion of people treated (with any recommended therapy) across databases, both before and after vaccination. Most patients with TTS received heparins, platelet aggregation inhibitors, or direct Xa inhibitors. The majority of VTE patients (before and after vaccination) were first treated with heparins in inpatient settings and direct Xa inhibitors in outpatient settings. In ATE patients, treatments were also similar before and after vaccinations, with platelet aggregation inhibitors prescribed most frequently. Inpatient and claims data also showed substantial heparin use. Conclusion: TTS, VTE, and ATE after COVID-19 vaccination were treated similarly to background events. Heparin use post-vaccine TTS suggests most events were not identified as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia by the treating clinicians.

A standardized framework for risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in observational healthcare databases.

Treatment effects are often anticipated to vary across groups of patients with different baseline risk. The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this study is to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five steps: (1) definition of the research aim, i.e., the population, the treatment, the comparator and the outcome(s) of interest; (2) identification of relevant databases; (3) development of a prediction model for the outcome(s) of interest; (4) estimation of relative and absolute treatment effect within strata of predicted risk, after adjusting for observed confounding; (5) presentation of the results. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating heterogeneity of the effect of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on three efficacy and nine safety outcomes across three observational databases. We provide a publicly available R software package for applying this framework to any database mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. In our demonstration, patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction receive negligible absolute benefits for all three efficacy outcomes, though they are more pronounced in the highest risk group, especially for acute myocardial infarction. Our framework allows for the evaluation of differential treatment effects across risk strata, which offers the opportunity to consider the benefit-harm trade-off between alternative treatments.

Estimating individualized treatment effects from randomized controlled trials: a simulation study to compare risk-based approaches.

BACKGROUND: Baseline outcome risk can be an important determinant of absolute treatment benefit and has been used in guidelines for "personalizing" medical decisions. We compared easily applicable risk-based methods for optimal prediction of individualized treatment effects. METHODS: We simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk, the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the prognostic index). We predicted absolute benefit using: models with a constant relative treatment effect; stratification in quarters of the prognostic index; models including a linear interaction of treatment with the prognostic index; models including an interaction of treatment with a restricted cubic spline transformation of the prognostic index; an adaptive approach using Akaike's Information Criterion. We evaluated predictive performance using root mean squared error and measures of discrimination and calibration for benefit. RESULTS: The linear-interaction model displayed optimal or close-to-optimal performance across many simulation scenarios with moderate sample size (N = 4,250; ~ 785 events). The restricted cubic splines model was optimal for strong non-linear deviations from a constant treatment effect, particularly when sample size was larger (N = 17,000). The adaptive approach also required larger sample sizes. These findings were illustrated in the GUSTO-I trial. CONCLUSIONS: An interaction between baseline risk and treatment assignment should be considered to improve treatment effect predictions.

Advancing the use of real world evidence in health technology assessment: insights from a multi-stakeholder workshop.

Introduction: Real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) holds significant potential for informing healthcare decision-making. A multistakeholder workshop was organised by the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN) and the GetReal Institute to explore the status, challenges, and opportunities in incorporating RWE into HTA, with a focus on learning from regulatory initiatives such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Data Analysis and Real World Interrogation Network (DARWIN EU®). Methods: The workshop gathered key stakeholders from regulatory agencies, HTA organizations, academia, and industry for three panel discussions on RWE and HTA integration. Insights and recommendations were collected through panel discussions and audience polls. The workshop outcomes were reviewed by authors to identify key themes, challenges, and recommendations. Results: The workshop discussions revealed several important findings relating to the use of RWE in HTA. Compared with regulatory processes, its adoption in HTA to date has been slow. Barriers include limited trust in RWE, data quality concerns, and uncertainty about best practices. Facilitators include multidisciplinary training, educational initiatives, and stakeholder collaboration, which could be facilitated by initiatives like EHDEN and the GetReal Institute. Demonstrating the impact of "driver projects" could promote RWE adoption in HTA. Conclusion: To enhance the integration of RWE in HTA, it is crucial to address known barriers through comprehensive training, stakeholder collaboration, and impactful exemplar research projects. By upskilling users and beneficiaries of RWE and those that generate it, promoting collaboration, and conducting "driver projects," can strengthen the HTA evidence base for more informed healthcare decisions.

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.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).

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.

TreatmentPatterns: An R package to facilitate the standardized development and analysis of treatment patterns across disease domains.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing interest to use real-world data to illustrate how patients with specific medical conditions are treated in real life. Insight in the current treatment practices helps to improve and tailor patient care, but is often held back by a lack of data interoperability and a high-level of required resources. We aimed to provide an easy tool that overcomes these barriers to support the standardized development and analysis of treatment patterns for a wide variety of medical conditions. METHODS: We formally defined the process of constructing treatment pathways and implemented this in an open-source R package TreatmentPatterns (https://github.com/mi-erasmusmc/TreatmentPatterns) to enable a reproducible and timely analysis of treatment patterns. RESULTS: The developed package supports the analysis of treatment patterns of a study population of interest. We demonstrate the functionality of the package by analyzing the treatment patterns of three common chronic diseases (type II diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and depression) in the Dutch Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) database. CONCLUSION: TreatmentPatterns is a tool to make the analysis of treatment patterns more accessible, more standardized, and more interpretation friendly. We hope it thereby contributes to the accumulation of knowledge on real-world treatment patterns across disease domains. We encourage researchers to further adjust and add custom analysis to the R package based on their research needs.