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.

BACKGROUND:Uncertainty remains about the optimal monotherapy for hypertension, with current guidelines recommending any primary agent among the first-line drug classes thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, in the absence of comorbid indications. Randomised trials have not further refined this choice. METHODS:We developed a comprehensive framework for real-world evidence that enables comparative effectiveness and safety evaluation across many drugs and outcomes from observational data encompassing millions of patients, while minimising inherent bias. Using this framework, we did a systematic, large-scale study under a new-user cohort design to estimate the relative risks of three primary (acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for heart failure, and stroke) and six secondary effectiveness and 46 safety outcomes comparing all first-line classes across a global network of six administrative claims and three electronic health record databases. The framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propensity adjustment, a large set of control outcomes, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested. FINDINGS:Using 4·9 million patients, we generated 22 000 calibrated, propensity-score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing all classes and outcomes across databases. Most estimates revealed no effectiveness differences between classes; however, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics showed better primary effectiveness than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: acute myocardial infarction (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75-0·95), hospitalisation for heart failure (0·83, 0·74-0·95), and stroke (0·83, 0·74-0·95) risk while on initial treatment. Safety profiles also favoured thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were significantly inferior to the other four classes. INTERPRETATION:This comprehensive framework introduces a new way of doing observational health-care science at scale. The approach supports equivalence between drug classes for initiating monotherapy for hypertension-in keeping with current guidelines, with the exception of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics superiority to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. FUNDING:US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Evidence derived from existing health-care data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, can fill evidence gaps in medicine. However, many claim such data cannot be used to estimate causal treatment effects because of the potential for observational study bias; for example, due to residual confounding. Other concerns include P hacking and publication bias. In response, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics international collaborative launched the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) research initiative. Its mission is to generate evidence on the effects of medical interventions using observational health-care databases while addressing the aforementioned concerns by following a recently proposed paradigm. We define 10 principles of LEGEND that enshrine this new paradigm, prescribing the generation and dissemination of evidence on many research questions at once; for example, comparing all treatments for a disease for many outcomes, thus preventing publication bias. These questions are answered using a prespecified and systematic approach, avoiding P hacking. Best-practice statistical methods address measured confounding, and control questions (research questions where the answer is known) quantify potential residual bias. Finally, the evidence is generated in a network of databases to assess consistency by sharing open-source analytics code to enhance transparency and reproducibility, but without sharing patient-level information. Here we detail the LEGEND principles and provide a generic overview of a LEGEND study. Our companion paper highlights an example study on the effects of hypertension treatments, and evaluates the internal and external validity of the evidence we generate.

Objectives

To demonstrate the application of the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) principles described in our companion article to hypertension treatments and assess internal and external validity of the generated evidence.

Materials and methods

LEGEND defines a process for high-quality observational research based on 10 guiding principles. We demonstrate how this process, here implemented through large-scale propensity score modeling, negative and positive control questions, empirical calibration, and full transparency, can be applied to compare antihypertensive drug therapies. We assess internal validity through covariate balance, confidence-interval coverage, between-database heterogeneity, and transitivity of results. We assess external validity through comparison to direct meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

From 21.6 million unique antihypertensive new users, we generate 6 076 775 effect size estimates for 699 872 research questions on 12 946 treatment comparisons. Through propensity score matching, we achieve balance on all baseline patient characteristics for 75% of estimates, observe 95.7% coverage in our effect-estimate 95% confidence intervals, find high between-database consistency, and achieve transitivity in 84.8% of triplet hypotheses. Compared with meta-analyses of RCTs, our results are consistent with 28 of 30 comparisons while providing narrower confidence intervals.

Conclusion

We find that these LEGEND results show high internal validity and are congruent with meta-analyses of RCTs. For these reasons we believe that evidence generated by LEGEND is of high quality and can inform medical decision-making where evidence is currently lacking. Subsequent publications will explore the clinical interpretations of this evidence.

[Figure: see text].

[Figure: see text].

Background and objective

As a response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several prediction models in the existing literature were rapidly developed, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance. However, none of these COVID-19 prediction models have been found to be reliable. Models are commonly assessed to have a risk of bias, often due to insufficient reporting, use of non-representative data, and lack of large-scale external validation. In this paper, we present the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modeling as a standardized approach for rapid yet reliable development and validation of prediction models. We demonstrate how our analytics pipeline and open-source software tools can be used to answer important prediction questions while limiting potential causes of bias (e.g., by validating phenotypes, specifying the target population, performing large-scale external validation, and publicly providing all analytical source code).

Methods

We show step-by-step how to implement the analytics pipeline for the question: 'In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, what is the risk of death 0 to 30 days after hospitalization?'. We develop models using six different machine learning methods in a USA claims database containing over 20,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and externally validate the models using data containing over 45,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations from South Korea, Spain, and the USA.

Results

Our open-source software tools enabled us to efficiently go end-to-end from problem design to reliable Model Development and evaluation. When predicting death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, AdaBoost, random forest, gradient boosting machine, and decision tree yielded similar or lower internal and external validation discrimination performance compared to L1-regularized logistic regression, whereas the MLP neural network consistently resulted in lower discrimination. L1-regularized logistic regression models were well calibrated.

Conclusion

Our results show that following the OHDSI analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modelling can enable the rapid development towards reliable prediction models. The OHDSI software tools and pipeline are open source and available to researchers from all around the world.

Alendronate and raloxifene are among the most popular anti-osteoporosis medications. However, there is a lack of head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies comparing the two treatments. We conducted a retrospective large-scale multicenter study encompassing over 300 million patients across nine databases encoded in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). The primary outcome was the incidence of osteoporotic hip fracture, while secondary outcomes were vertebral fracture, atypical femoral fracture (AFF), osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and esophageal cancer. We used propensity score trimming and stratification based on an expansive propensity score model with all pre-treatment patient characteritistcs. We accounted for unmeasured confounding using negative control outcomes to estimate and adjust for residual systematic bias in each data source. We identified 283,586 alendronate patients and 40,463 raloxifene patients. There were 7.48 hip fracture, 8.18 vertebral fracture, 1.14 AFF, 0.21 esophageal cancer and 0.09 ONJ events per 1,000 person-years in the alendronate cohort and 6.62, 7.36, 0.69, 0.22 and 0.06 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, in the raloxifene cohort. Alendronate and raloxifene have a similar hip fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.13), but alendronate users are more likely to have vertebral fractures (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14). Alendronate has higher risk for AFF (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23-1.84) but similar risk for esophageal cancer (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53-1.70), and ONJ (HR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78-3.34). We demonstrated substantial control of measured confounding by propensity score adjustment, and minimal residual systematic bias through negative control experiments, lending credibility to our effect estimates. Raloxifene is as effective as alendronate and may remain an option in the prevention of osteoporotic fracture.

Background: Characterization studies of COVID-19 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited in size and scope. The aim of the study is to provide a large-scale characterization of COVID-19 patients with COPD. Methods: We included thirteen databases contributing data from January-June 2020 from North America (US), Europe and Asia. We defined two cohorts of patients with COVID-19 namely a 'diagnosed' and 'hospitalized' cohort. 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 among COPD patients with COVID-19. Results: The study included 934,778 patients in the diagnosed COVID-19 cohort and 177,201 in the hospitalized COVID-19 cohort. Observed COPD prevalence in the diagnosed cohort ranged from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5-4.1%) in French data to 22.7% (95%CI 22.4-23.0) in US data, and from 1.9% (95%CI 1.6-2.2) in South Korean to 44.0% (95%CI 43.1-45.0) in US data, in the hospitalized cohorts. COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort had greater comorbidity than those in the diagnosed cohort, including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality was higher in COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort and ranged from 7.6% (95%CI 6.9-8.4) to 32.2% (95%CI 28.0-36.7) across databases. ARDS, acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmia and sepsis were the most common outcomes among hospitalized COPD patients.   Conclusion: COPD patients with COVID-19 have high levels of COVID-19-associated comorbidities and poor COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is required to identify patients with COPD at high risk of worse outcomes.

Objective

Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza.

Methods

A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization.

Results

We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%).

Conclusion

Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.