Characteristics and Outcomes for Recipients of NVX-CoV2373: A Real-World Retrospective Study in Germany.

Real-world evidence supports SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. This real-world retrospective study utilized the German Disease Analyzer database to characterize recipients of NVX-CoV2373 and explore vaccination outcomes. Recipients (≥12 years) of NVX-CoV2373 as a primary series or booster in Germany were vaccinated between March and December 2022. Outcomes included demographics and clinical characteristics of recipients, tolerability/reactogenicity-related events within 7 and 14 days post-vaccination, and protection from COVID-19. Overall, there were 597 recipients (mean age ~60 years) of NVX-CoV2373; 81% were vaccinated by a general practitioner, and 68% had a Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) high-risk factor. The most common baseline comorbidities were chronic neurological (36%) and chronic intestinal (21%) diseases. Among recipients with metabolic disease (~11%), 65% had diabetes. Tolerability/reactogenicity-related symptoms were recorded in ~1% of recipients. There were no sick-leave notes associated with NVX-CoV2373. After 10 months (median, 7 months) of follow-up, 95% (95% CI, 93-95) of recipients were estimated to be protected from COVID-19. Outcomes were similar across the primary series, booster, and STIKO populations. Tolerability and COVID-19 protection support the use of NVX-CoV2373 as a primary/booster vaccination for all authorized populations, including high-risk.

Incidence of mental health diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational network study.

AIMS: Population-wide restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic may create barriers to mental health diagnosis. This study aims to examine changes in the number of incident cases and the incidence rates of mental health diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: By using electronic health records from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea and the UK and claims data from the US, this study conducted interrupted time-series analyses to compare the monthly incident cases and the incidence of depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol misuse or dependence, substance misuse or dependence, bipolar disorders, personality disorders and psychoses diagnoses before (January 2017 to February 2020) and after (April 2020 to the latest available date of each database [up to November 2021]) the introduction of COVID-related restrictions. RESULTS: A total of 629,712,954 individuals were enrolled across nine databases. Following the introduction of restrictions, an immediate decline was observed in the number of incident cases of all mental health diagnoses in the US (rate ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.005 to 0.677) and in the incidence of all conditions in France, Germany, Italy and the US (RRs ranged from 0.002 to 0.422). In the UK, significant reductions were only observed in common mental illnesses. The number of incident cases and the incidence began to return to or exceed pre-pandemic levels in most countries from mid-2020 through 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers should be prepared to deliver service adaptations to mitigate burdens directly or indirectly caused by delays in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Ranitidine Use and Incident Cancer in a Multinational Cohort.

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

Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalisation in Patients with Osteoarthritis or Back Pain Treated with Ibuprofen Compared to Other NSAIDs or Paracetamol: A Network Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether ibuprofen use, compared with other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) or paracetamol, increases the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis or hospitalisation. DESIGN: A prevalent user and active comparator cohort study. SETTING: Two US claims databases (Open Claims and PharMetrics Plus) mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. PARTICIPANTS: Insured patients with a history of osteoarthritis or back pain and receiving ibuprofen, other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol between 1 November, 2019 and 31 January, 2020 (study enrolment window 1) or between 1 February, 2020 and 31 October, 2020 (study enrolment window 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Large-scale propensity score matching and empirical calibration were used to minimise confounding. Incidence and hazard ratios of COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalisation according to drug/s use were estimated and pooled in the same study period across data sources using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Index treatment episode was the primary risk evaluation window, censored at the time of discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 633,562 and 1,063,960 participants were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively, for the ibuprofen versus ns-NSAIDs comparison, 311,669 and 524,470 for ibuprofen versus COX-2i, and 492,002 and 878,598 for ibuprofen versus paracetamol. Meta-analyses of empirically calibrated hazard ratios revealed no significantly differential risk of COVID-19 outcomes in users of ibuprofen versus any of the other studied analgesic classes: hazard ratios were 1.13 (0.96-1.33) for the ibuprofen-ns-NSAIDs comparison, 1.03 (0.83-1.28) for the ibuprofen-COX-2i comparison and 1.13 (0.74-1.73) for ibuprofen-paracetamol comparison on COVID-19 diagnosis in the February 2020-October 2020 window. Similar hazard ratios were found on COVID-19 hospitalisation and across both study periods. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, we found no differential risks of incident COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 hospitalisation for ibuprofen users compared with other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol. Our findings support regulatory recommendations that NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, should be prescribed as indicated in the same way as before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who rely on ibuprofen or NSAIDs to manage chronic arthritis or musculoskeletal pain symptoms.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Between Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation : A Multinational Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC. OBJECTIVE: To do a large-scale comparison between all DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Multinational population-based cohort study. SETTING: Five standardized electronic health care databases, which covered 221 million people in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were newly diagnosed with AF from 2010 through 2019 and received a new DOAC prescription. MEASUREMENTS: Database-specific hazard ratios (HRs) of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 527 226 new DOAC users met the inclusion criteria (apixaban, n = 281 320; dabigatran, n = 61 008; edoxaban, n = 12 722; and rivaroxaban, n = 172 176). Apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94]), edoxaban (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.91]), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.66 to 0.79]). No substantial differences were observed for other outcomes or DOAC-DOAC comparisons. The results were consistent for patients aged 80 years or older. Consistent associations between lower GIB risk and apixaban versus rivaroxaban were observed among patients receiving the standard dose (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.64 to 0.82]), those receiving a reduced dose (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.61 to 0.77]), and those with chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.59 to 0.77]). LIMITATION: Residual confounding is possible. CONCLUSION: Among patients with AF, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, ICH, and all-cause mortality compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. This finding was consistent for patients aged 80 years or older and those with chronic kidney disease, who are often underrepresented in clinical trials. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Risk of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a multinational, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine, a drug commonly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, has received much negative publicity for adverse events associated with its authorisation for emergency use to treat patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We studied the safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, to determine the risk associated with its use in routine care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this multinational, retrospective study, new user cohort studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 18 years or older and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared with those initiating sulfasalazine and followed up over 30 days, with 16 severe adverse events studied. Self-controlled case series were done to further establish safety in wider populations, and included all users of hydroxychloroquine regardless of rheumatoid arthritis status or indication. Separately, severe adverse events associated with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (compared with hydroxychloroquine plus amoxicillin) were studied. Data comprised 14 sources of claims data or electronic medical records from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (HRs) according to drug use. Estimates were pooled where the I 2 value was less than 0·4. FINDINGS: The study included 956 374 users of hydroxychloroquine, 310 350 users of sulfasalazine, 323 122 users of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, and 351 956 users of hydroxychloroquine plus amoxicillin. No excess risk of severe adverse events was identified when 30-day hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were compared. Self-controlled case series confirmed these findings. However, long-term use of hydroxychloroquine appeared to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality (calibrated HR 1·65 [95% CI 1·12-2·44]). Addition of azithromycin appeared to be associated with an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (calibrated HR 2·19 [95% CI 1·22-3·95]), chest pain or angina (1·15 [1·05-1·26]), and heart failure (1·22 [1·02-1·45]). INTERPRETATION: Hydroxychloroquine treatment appears to have no increased risk in the short term among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but in the long term it appears to be associated with excess cardiovascular mortality. The addition of azithromycin increases the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular mortality even in the short term. We call for careful consideration of the benefit-risk trade-off when counselling those on hydroxychloroquine treatment. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Senior Research Fellowship programme, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research and Development, IQVIA, Korea Health Industry Development Institute through the Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic of Korea, Versus Arthritis, UK Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership, Foundation Alfonso Martin Escudero, Innovation Fund Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council Open Fund Large Collaborative Grant, VINCI, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.