| 1. |
- Voss, Erica A, et al.
(författare)
-
Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 58
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population.A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases.Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism.Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term.None.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lai, Lana Yh, et al.
(författare)
-
Current Approaches to Vaccine Safety Using Observational Data: A Rationale for the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Events Under Surveillance-for Vaccines) Study Design.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in pharmacology. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1663-9812. ; 13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to detect adverse events following immunization in a population. Whether certain methods of surveillance are more precise and unbiased in generating safety signals is unclear. Here, we synthesized information from existing literature to provide an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of epidemiologic and analytical methods used in vaccine monitoring, focusing on cohort, case-control and self-controlled designs. These designs are proposed to be evaluated in the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Event Under Surveillance-for vaccines) study because of their widespread use and potential utility. Over the past decades, there have been an increasing number of epidemiological study designs used for vaccine safety surveillance. While traditional cohort and case-control study designs remain widely used, newer, novel designs such as the self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk intervals have been developed. Each study design comes with its strengths and limitations, and the most appropriate study design will depend on availability of resources, access to records, number and distribution of cases, and availability of population coverage data. Several assumptions have to be made while using the various study designs, and while the goal is to mitigate any biases, violations of these assumptions are often still present to varying degrees. In our review, we discussed some of the potential biases (i.e., selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding bias), and ways to mitigate them. While the types of epidemiological study designs are well established, a comprehensive comparison of the analytical aspects (including method evaluation and performance metrics) of these study designs are relatively less well studied. We summarized the literature, reporting on two simulation studies, which compared the detection time, empirical power, error rate and risk estimate bias across the above-mentioned study designs. While these simulation studies provided insights on the analytic performance of each of the study designs, its applicability to real-world data remains unclear. To bridge that gap, we provided the rationale of the EUMAEUS study, with a brief description of the study design; and how the use of real-world multi-database networks can provide insights into better methods evaluation and vaccine safety surveillance.
|
|
| 3. |
- Morales, Daniel R, et al.
(författare)
-
Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19: an international, open science, cohort analysis.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Digital health. - 2589-7500. ; 3:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.Among 1355349 antihypertensive users (363785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.
|
|
| 4. |
- Norén, G. Niklas, et al.
(författare)
-
Empirical Performance of the Calibrated Self-Controlled Cohort Analysis Within Temporal Pattern Discovery : Lessons for Developing a Risk Identification and Analysis System
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Drug Safety. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0114-5916 .- 1179-1942. ; 36, s. s107-S121
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Observational healthcare data offer the potential to identify adverse drug reactions that may be missed by spontaneous reporting. The self-controlled cohort analysis within the Temporal Pattern Discovery framework compares the observed-to-expected ratio of medical outcomes during post-exposure surveillance periods with those during a set of distinct pre-exposure control periods in the same patients. It utilizes an external control group to account for systematic differences between the different time periods, thus combining within- and between-patient confounder adjustment in a single measure. Objectives To evaluate the performance of the calibrated self-controlled cohort analysis within Temporal Pattern Discovery as a tool for risk identification in observational healthcare data. Research Design Different implementations of the calibrated self-controlled cohort analysis were applied to 399 drug-outcome pairs (165 positive and 234 negative test cases across 4 health outcomes of interest) in 5 real observational databases (four with administrative claims and one with electronic health records). Measures Performance was evaluated on real data through sensitivity/specificity, the area under receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC), and bias. Results The calibrated self-controlled cohort analysis achieved good predictive accuracy across the outcomes and databases under study. The optimal design based on this reference set uses a 360 days surveillance period and a single control period 180 days prior to new prescriptions. It achieved an average AUC of 0.75 and AUC >0.70 in all but one scenario. A design with three separate control periods performed better for the electronic health records database and for acute renal failure across all data sets. The estimates for negative test cases were generally unbiased, but a minor negative bias of up to 0.2 on the RR-scale was observed with the configurations using multiple control periods, for acute liver injury and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Conclusions The calibrated self-controlled cohort analysis within Temporal Pattern Discovery shows promise as a tool for risk identification; it performs well at discriminating positive from negative test cases. The optimal parameter configuration may vary with the data set and medical outcome of interest.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
