| 1. |
- Voss, Erica A, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 58
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Arshad, F., et al.
(author)
-
Serially Combining Epidemiological Designs Does Not Improve Overall Signal Detection in Vaccine Safety Surveillance
- 2023
-
In: Drug Safety. - 0114-5916. ; 46:8, s. 797-807
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- IntroductionVaccine safety surveillance commonly includes a serial testing approach with a sensitive method for 'signal generation' and specific method for 'signal validation.' The extent to which serial testing in real-world studies improves or hinders overall performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity remains unknown.MethodsWe assessed the overall performance of serial testing using three administrative claims and one electronic health record database. We compared type I and II errors before and after empirical calibration for historical comparator, self-controlled case series (SCCS), and the serial combination of those designs against six vaccine exposure groups with 93 negative control and 279 imputed positive control outcomes.ResultsThe historical comparator design mostly had fewer type II errors than SCCS. SCCS had fewer type I errors than the historical comparator. Before empirical calibration, the serial combination increased specificity and decreased sensitivity. Type II errors mostly exceeded 50%. After empirical calibration, type I errors returned to nominal; sensitivity was lowest when the methods were combined.ConclusionWhile serial combination produced fewer false-positive signals compared with the most specific method, it generated more false-negative signals compared with the most sensitive method. Using a historical comparator design followed by an SCCS analysis yielded decreased sensitivity in evaluating safety signals relative to a one-stage SCCS approach. While the current use of serial testing in vaccine surveillance may provide a practical paradigm for signal identification and triage, single epidemiological designs should be explored as valuable approaches to detecting signals.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Makadia, Rupa, et al.
(author)
-
Evaluating the impact of alternative phenotype definitions on incidence rates across a global data network.
- 2023
-
In: JAMIA open. - 2574-2531. ; 6:4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.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.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.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.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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Morales, D. R., et al.
(author)
-
Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without asthma from the United States, South Korea, and Europe
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Asthma. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0277-0903 .- 1532-4303. ; 60:1, s. 76-86
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma. Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions. Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6-8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7-6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2-18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0-6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6-22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8-20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15-30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients. Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients. KEY MESSAGES Asthma prevalence in COVID-19 patients varied internationally (5.2-20.5%).The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation with COVID-19 in diagnosed and hospitalized patients was low.Comorbidities were common in COVID-19 patients with asthma. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392 .
|
|
