Search

Kristin Kostka,1,2 Talita Duarte-Salles,3 Albert Prats-Uribe,4 Anthony G Sena,5,6 Andrea Pistillo,3 Sara Khalid,4 Lana YH Lai,7 Asieh Golozar,8,9 Thamir M Alshammari,10 Dalia M Dawoud,11 Fredrik Nyberg,12 Adam B Wilcox,13,14 Alan Andryc,5 Andrew Williams,15 Anna Ostropolets,16 Carlos Areia,17 Chi Young Jung,18 Christopher A Harle,19 Christian G Reich,1,2 Clair Blacketer,5,6 Daniel R Morales,20 David A Dorr,21 Edward Burn,3,4 Elena Roel,3,22 Eng Hooi Tan,4 Evan Minty,23 Frank DeFalco,5 Gabriel de Maeztu,24 Gigi Lipori,19 Hiba Alghoul,25 Hong Zhu,26 Jason A Thomas,13 Jiang Bian,19 Jimyung Park,27 Jordi Martínez Roldán,28 Jose D Posada,29 Juan M Banda,30 Juan P Horcajada,31 Julianna Kohler,32 Karishma Shah,33 Karthik Natarajan,16,34 Kristine E Lynch,35,36 Li Liu,37 Lisa M Schilling,38 Martina Recalde,3,22 Matthew Spotnitz,14 Mengchun Gong,39 Michael E Matheny,40,41 Neus Valveny,42 Nicole G Weiskopf,21 Nigam Shah,29 Osaid Alser,43 Paula Casajust,42 Rae Woong Park,27,44 Robert Schuff,21 Sarah Seager,1 Scott L DuVall,35,36 Seng Chan You,45 Seokyoung Song,46 Sergio Fernández-Bertolín,3 Stephen Fortin,5 Tanja Magoc,19 Thomas Falconer,16 Vignesh Subbian,47 Vojtech Huser,48 Waheed-Ul-Rahman Ahmed,33,49 William Carter,38 Yin Guan,50 Yankuic Galvan,19 Xing He,19 Peter R Rijnbeek,6 George Hripcsak,16,34 Patrick B Ryan,5,16 Marc A Suchard,51 Daniel Prieto-Alhambra4 1IQVIA, Cambridge, MA, USA; 2OHDSI Center at The Roux Institute, Northeastern University, Portland, ME, USA; 3Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain; 4Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5Janssen Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, USA; 6Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 7School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 8Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY, USA; 9Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; 10College of Pharmacy, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 11National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK; 12School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 13Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 14Unviersity of Washington Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA; 15Tufts Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Boston, MA, USA; 16Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 17Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 18Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea; 19University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL, USA; 20Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; 21Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; 22Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 23O’Brien Institute for Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 24IOMED, Barcelona, Spain; 25Faculty of Medicine, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine; 26Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 27Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ajou University Graduate School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea; 28Director of Innovation and Digital Transformation, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; 29Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA; 30Georgia State University, Department of Computer Science, Atlanta, GA, USA; 31Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital del Mar, Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigació Mèdica (IMIM), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; 32United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, USA; 33Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 34New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; 35VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 36Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 37Biomedical Big Data Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 38Data Science to Patient Value Program, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; 39Institute of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 40Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 41Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 42Real-World Evidence, TFS, Barcelona, Spain; 43Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 44Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea; 45Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; 46Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu, School of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea; 47College of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 48National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; 49College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, St Luke’s Campus, Exeter, UK; 50DHC Technologies Co. Ltd., Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 51Departments of Biostatistics, Computational Medicine, and Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USACorrespondence: Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX37LD, UK, Email daniel.prietoalhambra@ndorms.ox.ac.ukPurpose: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD.Patients and Methods: We conducted a descriptive retrospective database study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub. We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services.Results: We aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed.Conclusion: We constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.Keywords: OHDSI, OMOP CDM, descriptive epidemiology, real world data, real world evidence, open science

Vojtech Huser,1 Murat Sincan,2,3 James J Cimino1,4 1Laboratory for Informatics Development, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA; 2Undiagnosed Diseases Program, 3Office of the Clinical Director, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, MD, USA; 4National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, MD, USA Abstract: Personalized medicine, the ability to tailor diagnostic and treatment decisions for individual patients, is seen as the evolution of modern medicine. We characterize here the informatics resources available today or envisioned in the near future that can support clinical interpretation of genomic test results. We assume a clinical sequencing scenario (germline whole-exome sequencing) in which a clinical specialist, such as an endocrinologist, needs to tailor patient management decisions within his or her specialty (targeted findings) but relies on a genetic counselor to interpret off-target incidental findings. We characterize the genomic input data and list various types of knowledge bases that provide genomic knowledge for generating clinical decision support. We highlight the need for patient-level databases with detailed lifelong phenotype content in addition to genotype data and provide a list of recommendations for personalized medicine knowledge bases and databases. We conclude that no single knowledge base can currently support all aspects of personalized recommendations and that consolidation of several current resources into larger, more dynamic and collaborative knowledge bases may offer a future path forward. Keywords: personalized medicine, knowledge bases, databases, clinical decision support, clinical informatics

Unlabelled: To support clinical decision-making, computerized information retrieval tools known as "infobuttons" deliver contextually-relevant knowledge resources into clinical information systems. The Health Level Seven International (HL7) Context-Aware Knowledge Retrieval (Infobutton) Standard specifies a standard mechanism to enable infobuttons on a large scale.Objective: To examine the experience of organizations in the course of implementing the HL7 Infobutton Standard.Method: Cross-sectional online survey and in-depth phone interviews.Results: A total of 17 organizations participated in the study. Analysis of the in-depth interviews revealed 20 recurrent themes. Implementers underscored the benefits, simplicity, and flexibility of the HL7 Infobutton Standard. Yet, participants voiced the need for easier access to standard specifications and improved guidance to beginners. Implementers predicted that the Infobutton Standard will be widely or at least fairly well adopted in the next 5 years, but uptake will depend largely on adoption among electronic health record (EHR) vendors. To accelerate EHR adoption of the Infobutton Standard, implementers recommended HL7-compliant infobutton capabilities to be included in the United States Meaningful Use Certification Criteria for EHR systems.Limitations: Opinions and predictions should be interpreted with caution, since all the participant organizations have successfully implemented the standard and over half of the organizations were actively engaged in the development of the standard.Conclusion: Overall, implementers reported a very positive experience with the HL7 Infobutton Standard. Despite indications of increasing uptake, measures should be taken to stimulate adoption of the Infobutton Standard among EHR vendors. Widespread adoption of the Infobutton Standard has the potential to bring contextually relevant clinical decision support content into the healthcare provider workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the discoverability of supporting research materials, including supporting documents, individual participant data (IPD), and associated publications, in US federally funded COVID-19 clinical study records in ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG)., Methods: Study registration records were evaluated for (1) links to supporting documents, including protocols, informed consent forms, and statistical analysis plans; (2) information on how unaffiliated researchers may access IPD and, when applicable, the linking of the IPD record back to the CTG record; and (3) links to associated publications and, when applicable, the linking of the publication record back to the CTG record., Results: 206 CTG study records were included in the analysis. Few records shared supporting documents, with only 4% of records sharing all 3 document types. 27% of records indicated they intended to share IPD, with 45% of these providing sufficient information to request access to the IPD. Only 1 dataset record was located, which linked back to its corresponding CTG record. The majority of CTG records did not have links to publications (61%), and only 21% linked out to at least 1 results publication. All publication records linked back to their corresponding CTG records., Conclusion: With only 4% of records sharing all supporting document types, 12% sufficient information to access IPD, and 21% results publications, improvements can be made to the discoverability of research materials in federally funded, COVID-19 CTG records. Sharing these materials on CTG can increase their discoverability, therefore increasing the validity, transparency, and reusability of clinical research., (Copyright © 2024 Paije Wilson, Vojtech Huser.)

There are many initiatives attempting to harmonize data collection across human clinical studies using common data elements (CDEs). The increased use of CDEs in large prior studies can guide researchers planning new studies. For that purpose, we analyzed the All of Us (AoU) program, an ongoing US study intending to enroll one million participants and serve as a platform for numerous observational analyses. AoU adopted the OMOP Common Data Model to standardize both research (Case Report Form [CRF]) and real-world (imported from Electronic Health Records [EHRs]) data. AoU standardized specific data elements and values by including CDEs from terminologies such as LOINC and SNOMED CT. For this study, we defined all elements from established terminologies as CDEs and all custom concepts created in the Participant Provided Information (PPI) terminology as unique data elements (UDEs). We found 1 033 research elements, 4 592 element-value combinations and 932 distinct values. Most elements were UDEs (869, 84.1%), while most CDEs were from LOINC (103 elements, 10.0%) or SNOMED CT (60, 5.8%). Of the LOINC CDEs, 87 (53.1% of 164 CDEs) originated from previous data collection initiatives, such as PhenX (17 CDEs) and PROMIS (15 CDEs). On a CRF level, The Basics (12 of 21 elements, 57.1%) and Lifestyle (10 of 14, 71.4%) were the only CRFs with multiple CDEs. On a value level, 61.7% of distinct values are from an established terminology. AoU demonstrates the use of the OMOP model for integrating research and routine healthcare data (64 elements in both contexts), which allows for monitoring lifestyle and health changes outside the research setting. The increased inclusion of CDEs in large studies (like AoU) is important in facilitating the use of existing tools and improving the ease of understanding and analyzing the data collected, which is more challenging when using study specific formats., Competing Interests: NO authors have competing interests., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many clinical studies have been initiated leading to the need for efficient ways to track and analyze study results. We expanded our previous project that tracked registered COVID-19 clinical studies to also track result articles generated from these studies. Our objective was to develop a data science approach to identify and analyze all publications linked to COVID-19 clinical studies and generate a prioritized list of publications for efficient understanding of the state of COVID-19 clinical research., Methods: We conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify articles linked to COVID-19 studies, and developed criteria based on the trial phase, intervention, location, and record recency to develop a prioritized list of result publications., Results: The performed searchers resulted in 1 022 articles linked to 565 interventional trials (17.8% of all 3 167 COVID-19 interventional trials as of 31 January 2022). 609 publications were identified via abstract-link in PubMed and 413 via registry-link in ClinicalTrials.gov, with 27 articles linked from both sources. Of the 565 trials publishing at least one article, 197 (34.9%) had multiple linked publications. An attention score was assigned to each publication to develop a prioritized list of all publications linked to COVID-19 trials and 83 publications were identified that are result articles from late phase (Phase 3) trials with at least one US site and multiple study record updates. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, 108 linked result articles for 64 trials (14.7% of 436 total COVID-19 vaccine trials) were found., Conclusions: Our method allows for the efficient identification of important COVID-19 articles that report results of registered clinical trials and are connected via a structured article-trial link. Our data science methodology also allows for consistent and as needed data updates and is generalizable to other conditions of interest., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Measurement concepts are essential to observational healthcare research; however, a lack of concept harmonization limits the quality of research that can be done on multisite research networks. We developed five methods that used a combination of automated, semi-automated and manual approaches for generating measurement concept sets. We validated our concept sets by calculating their frequencies in cohorts from the Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) database. For heart transplant patients, the preoperative frequencies of basic metabolic panel concept sets, which we generated by a semi-automated approach, were greater than 99%. We also made concept sets for lumbar puncture and coagulation panels, by automated and manual methods respectively.

Background: Maintenance drugs are used to treat chronic conditions. Several classes of maintenance drugs have attracted attention because of their potential to affect susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19., Methods: Using claims data on 20% random sample of Part D Medicare enrollees from April to December 2020, we identified patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Using a nested case-control design, non-COVID-19 controls were identified by 1:5 matching on age, race, sex, dual-eligibility status, and geographical region. We identified usage of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB), statins, warfarin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, P2Y12 inhibitors, famotidine and hydroxychloroquine based on Medicare prescription claims data. Using extended Cox regression models with time-varying propensity score adjustment we examined the independent effect of each study drug on contracting COVID-19. For severity of COVID-19, we performed extended Cox regressions on all COVID-19 patients, using COVID-19-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality as outcomes. Covariates included gender, age, race, geographic region, low-income indicator, and co-morbidities. To compensate for indication bias related to the use of hydroxychloroquine for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19, we censored patients who only started on hydroxychloroquine in 2020., Results: Up to December 2020, our sample contained 374,229 Medicare patients over 65 who were diagnosed with COVID-19. Among the COVID-19 patients, 278,912 (74.6%) were on at least one study drug. The three most common study drugs among COVID-19 patients were statins 187,374 (50.1%), ACEI 97,843 (26.2%) and ARB 83,290 (22.3%). For all three outcomes (diagnosis, hospitalization and death), current users of ACEI, ARB, statins, warfarin, direct factor Xa inhibitors and P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with reduced risks, compared to never users. Famotidine did not show consistent significant effects. Hydroxychloroquine did not show significant effects after censoring of recent starters., Conclusion: Maintenance use of ACEI, ARB, warfarin, statins, direct factor Xa inhibitors and P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with reduction in risk of acquiring COVID-19 and dying from it., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many clinical studies have been initiated leading to the need for efficient ways to track and analyze study results. We expanded our previous project that tracked registered COVID-19 clinical studies to also track result articles generated from these studies. We conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify articles linked to COVID-19 studies, and developed criteria based on the trial phase, intervention, location, and record recency to develop a prioritized list of result publications. We found 760 articles linked to 419 interventional trials (15.7% of all 2 669 COVID-19 interventional trials as of 15 August 2021), with 418 identified via abstract-link in PubMed and 342 via registry-link in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 419 trials publishing at least one article, 123 (29.4%) have multiple linked publications. We used an attention score to develop a prioritized list of all publications linked to COVID-19 trials and identified 58 publications that are result articles from late phase (Phase 3) trials with at least one US site and multiple study record updates. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, we found 69 linked result articles for 40 trials (13.9% of 290 total COVID-19 vaccine trials). Our method allows for the efficient identification of important COVID-19 articles that report results of registered clinical trials and are connected via a structured article-trial link.

Objectives: To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children and adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to compare them in secondary analyses with patients diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza in 2017-2018., Methods: International network cohort using real-world data from European primary care records (France, Germany, and Spain), South Korean claims and US claims, and hospital databases. We included children and adolescents diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020. We described baseline demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments, and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and death., Results: A total of 242 158 children and adolescents diagnosed and 9769 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 2 084 180 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were more common among those hospitalized with versus diagnosed with COVID-19. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital prevalent treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%) and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8%-7.6%), famotidine (9.0%-28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0%-21.4%), heparin (2.2%-18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8%-14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the cohort diagnosed with COVID-19, with undetectable ( n < 5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia and hypoxemia were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza., Conclusions: Despite negligible fatality, complications including hospitalization, hypoxemia, and pneumonia were more frequent in children and adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differentiate diagnoses. A wide range of medications was used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: With increasing use of real world data in observational health care research, data quality assessment of these data is equally gaining in importance. Electronic health record (EHR) or claims datasets can differ significantly in the spectrum of care covered by the data., Objective: In our study, we link provider specialty with diagnoses (encoded in International Classification of Diseases) with a motivation to characterize data completeness., Methods: We develop a set of measures that determine diagnostic span of a specialty (how many distinct diagnosis codes are generated by a specialty) and specialty span of a diagnosis (how many specialties diagnose a given condition). We also analyze ranked lists for both measures. As use case, we apply these measures to outpatient Medicare claims data from 2016 (3.5 billion diagnosis-specialty pairs). We analyze 82 distinct specialties present in Medicare claims (using Medicare list of specialties derived from level III Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Codes)., Results: A typical specialty diagnoses on average 4,046 distinct diagnosis codes. It can range from 33 codes for medical toxicology to 25,475 codes for internal medicine. Specialties with large visit volume tend to have large diagnostic span. Median specialty span of a diagnosis code is 8 specialties with a range from 1 to 82 specialties. In total, 13.5% of all observed diagnoses are generated exclusively by a single specialty. Quantitative cumulative rankings reveal that some diagnosis codes can be dominated by few specialties. Using such diagnoses in cohort or outcome definitions may thus be vulnerable to incomplete specialty coverage of a given dataset., Conclusion: We propose specialty fingerprinting as a method to assess data completeness component of data quality. Datasets covering a full spectrum of care can be used to generate reference benchmark data that can quantify relative importance of a specialty in constructing diagnostic history elements of computable phenotype definitions., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Medicaid is a significant health insurance plan providing healthcare coverage to up to a third of the population of the United Sates. We describe two different formats of Medicaid data within Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Virtual Research Data Center. We analyze record length, age and enrollment justification among patients for both data formats. As of December 2016, the total size of Medicaid population available from CMS is 92,953,389; 45% of patients are aged 0 to 18, 26.6% are aged 19-35 and 23.2% are aged 36-64. In terms of Medicaid eligibility, 35.6% qualify due to (child) age and 26.8% qualify due to income. We also compare the volume of Medicaid to Medicare for year 2016. We conclude that Medicaid data includes patients with significant record lengths and relatively well documented enrollment justification, which are high value assets for data reuse researchers that are willing to balance known data limitations with careful analysis design and interpretation., (©2021 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

Many research sponsors require sharing of data from human clinical trials. We created the CONSIDER statement, a set of recommendations to improve data sharing practices and increase the availability and re-usability of individual participant data from clinical trials. We developed the recommendations by reviewing shared individual participant data and study artifacts from a set of completed studies, as well as study data deposited on ClinicalTrials.gov and on several data sharing platforms. The CONSIDER statement is comprised of seven sections including: format, data sharing, study design, case report forms, data dictionary, data de-identification and choice of data sharing platform. We developed several different forms of CONSIDER which includes a brief form (the checklist), a full form (detailed descriptions and examples), and a scoring methodology. The checklist can be used to evaluate adherence to various progressive data sharing recommendations. We are currently in Phase 2 of collecting feedback on the CONSIDER statement., (©2021 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to determine the temporal trend of the association of 66 comorbidities with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection status among Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 through 2016.We harvested patient level encounter claims from a 17-year long 100% sample of Medicare records. We used the chronic conditions warehouse comorbidity flags to determine HIV infection status and presence of comorbidities. We prepared 1 data set per year for analysis. Our 17 study data sets are retrospective annualized patient level case histories where the comorbidity status reflects if the patient has ever met the comorbidity case definition from the start of the study to the analysis year.We implemented one logistic binary regression model per study year to discover the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of a comorbidity belonging to our binary classes of HIV+ or HIV- study populations. We report MLE and odds ratios by comorbidity and year.Of the 66 assessed comorbidities, 35 remained associated with HIV- across all model years, 19 remained associated with HIV+ across all model years. Three comorbidities changed association from HIV+ to HIV- and 9 comorbidities changed association from HIV- to HIV+.The prevalence of comorbidities associated with HIV infection changed over time due to clinical, social, and epidemiological reasons. Comorbidity surveillance can provide important insights into the understanding and management of HIV infection and its consequences., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: This study was intended to (1) provide clinical trial data-sharing platform designers with insight into users' experiences when attempting to evaluate and access datasets, (2) spark conversations about improving the transparency and discoverability of clinical trial data, and (3) provide a partial view of the current information-sharing landscape for clinical trials., Methods: We evaluated preview information provided for 10 datasets in each of 7 clinical trial data-sharing platforms between February and April 2019. Specifically, we evaluated the platforms in terms of the extent to which we found (1) preview information about the dataset, (2) trial information on ClinicalTrials.gov and other external websites, and (3) evidence of the existence of trial protocols and data dictionaries., Results: All seven platforms provided data previews. Three platforms provided information on data file format (e.g., CSV, SAS file). Three allowed batch downloads of datasets (i.e., downloading multiple datasets with a single request), whereas four required separate requests for each dataset. All but one platform linked to ClinicalTrials.gov records, but only one platform had ClinicalTrails.gov records that linked back to the platform. Three platforms consistently linked to external websites and primary publications. Four platforms provided evidence of the presence of a protocol, and six platforms provided evidence of the presence of data dictionaries., Conclusions: More work is needed to improve the discoverability, transparency, and utility of information on clinical trial data-sharing platforms. Increasing the amount of dataset preview information available to users could considerably improve the discoverability and utility of clinical trial data., (Copyright © 2021 Paije Wilson, Vojtech Huser.)

Background: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response [1,2]. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) [3] Characterizing Health Associated Risks, and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD. Methods: We conducted a descriptive cohort study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11 th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub [4]. Findings: We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19 , and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services . All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts, and are available in an interactive website: https://data.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationCharybdis/. Interpretation: CHARYBDIS findings provide benchmarks that contribute to our understanding of COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. This can enable timely assessment of real-world outcomes of preventative and therapeutic options as they are introduced in clinical practice.

It is difficult to arrive at an efficient and widely acceptable set of common data elements (CDEs). Trial outcomes, as defined in a clinical trial registry, offer a large set of elements to analyze. However, all clinical trial outcomes is an overwhelming amount of information. One way to reduce this amount of data to a usable volume is to only use a subset of trials. Our method uses a subset of trials by considering trials that support drug approval (pivotal trials) by Food and Drug Administration. We identified a set of pivotal trials from FDA drug approval documents and used primary outcomes data for these trials to identify a set of important CDEs. We identified 76 CDEs out of a set of 172 data elements from 192 pivotal trials for 100 drugs. This set of CDEs, grouped by medical condition, can be considered as containing the most significant data elements., (©2020 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

HIV medication adherence is a topic of major public health concern in the United States. Adherent patients may be less likely to experience treatment failure, AIDS presentations and extreme medical costs. We evaluate a cohort of highly adherent Medicare beneficiaries to establish if the out of pocket costs of HIV medications are an inherent barrier to adherence. We analyzed a 100% sample of Medicare Part-D prescription medications. The drug and out ofpocket costs for HIV and non-HIV medications of highly adherent cohort were extracted and analyzed. The average gross drug cost per beneficiary was $34,029for HIV medications and $11,439for non-HIV medications. Average out of pocket costs per beneficiary was $454for HIV medications and $129 for non-HIV medications. Out of pocket costs do not reasonably appear to be a barrier to adherence for Part-D beneficiaries., (©2020 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the association of fluoroquinolone use with tendon ruptures compared with no fluoroquinolone and that of the four most commonly prescribed non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics in the USA., Design: Retrospective observational study., Setting: US seniors enrolled in the federal old-age, survivor's insurance programme., Participants: 1 009 925 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and their inpatient, outpatient, prescription drug records were used., Interventions: Seven oral antibiotics, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) and amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, azithromycin and cephalexin., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: All tendon ruptures combined, and three types of tendon ruptures by anatomic site, Achilles tendon rupture, rupture of rotator cuff and other tendon ruptures occurred in 2007-2016., Results: Of three fluoroquinolones, only levofloxacin exhibited a significant increased risk of tendon ruptures-16% (HR=1.16; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28), and 120% (HR=2.20; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.24) for rotator cuff and Achilles tendon rupture, respectively, in the ≤30 days window. Ciprofloxacin (HR=0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03) and moxifloxacin (HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93) exhibited no increased risk of tendon ruptures combined.Among the non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics, cephalexin exhibited increased risk of combined tendon ruptures (HR=1.31; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.41) and modest to large risks across all anatomic rupture sites (HRs 1.19-1.93) at ≤30 days window. Notably, the risk of levofloxacin never exceeded the risk of the non-fluoroquinolone, cephalexin in any comparison., Conclusions: In our study, fluoroquinolones as a class were not associated with the increased risk of tendon ruptures. Neither ciprofloxacin nor moxifloxacin exhibited any risk for tendon ruptures. Levofloxacin did exhibit significant increased risk. Cephalexin with no reported effect on metalloprotease activity had an equal or greater risk than levofloxacin; so we question whether metalloprotease activity has any relevance to observed associations with tendon rupture. Confounding by indication bias may be more relevant and should be given more consideration as explanation for significant associations in observational studies of tendon rupture., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children/adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19. Secondly, to describe health outcomes amongst children/adolescents diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza. Design International network cohort. Setting Real-world data from European primary care records (France/Germany/Spain), South Korean claims and US claims and hospital databases. Participants Diagnosed and/or hospitalized children/adolescents with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020; diagnosed with influenza in 2017-2018. Main outcome measures Baseline demographics and comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), and death. Results A total of 55,270 children/adolescents diagnosed and 3,693 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were all more common among those hospitalized vs diagnosed with COVID-19. The most common COVID-19 symptom was fever. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%), and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8% to 37.6%), famotidine (9.0% to 28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0% to 21.4%), heparin (2.2% to 18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8% to 14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort, with undetectable (N<5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia, ARDS, and MIS-C were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. Conclusions Despite negligible fatality, complications including pneumonia, ARDS and MIS-C were more frequent in children/adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differential diagnosis. A wide range of medications were used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.

Early identification of symptoms and comorbidities most predictive of COVID-19 is critical to identify infection, guide policies to effectively contain the pandemic, and improve health systems' response. Here, we characterised socio-demographics and comorbidity in 3,316,107persons tested and 219,072 persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020, and their key health outcomes in the month following the first positive test. Routine care data from primary care electronic health records (EHR) from Spain, hospital EHR from the United States (US), and claims data from South Korea and the US were used. The majority of study participants were women aged 18-65 years old. Positive/tested ratio varied greatly geographically (2.2:100 to 31.2:100) and over time (from 50:100 in February-April to 6.8:100 in May-June). Fever, cough and dyspnoea were the most common symptoms at presentation. Between 4%-38% required admission and 1-10.5% died within a month from their first positive test. Observed disparity in testing practices led to variable baseline characteristics and outcomes, both nationally (US) and internationally. Our findings highlight the importance of large scale characterization of COVID-19 international cohorts to inform planning and resource allocation including testing as countries face a second wave., Competing Interests: COMPETING INTEREST STATEMENT All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, with the following declarations made: DPA reports grants from Amgen, grants and other from UCB Biopharma, grants from Johnson and Johnson, outside the submitted work. DM is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Development Fellowship (Grant 214588/Z/18/Z) and reports grants from Chief Scientist Office (CSO), grants from Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK), grants from National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), and Tenovus outside the submitted work. SCY reports grants from Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, grants from Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, during the conduct of the study. AG reports personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work; and she is a full-time employee at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. This work was not conducted at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lane reports grants from Versus Arthritis, grants from Medical Research Council, outside the submitted work. MS reports grants from US National Science Foundation, grants from US National Institutes of Health, grants from IQVIA, personal fees from Janssen Research and Development, during the conduct of the study. HA reports personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, outside the submitted work. AS reports personal fees from Janssen Research & Development, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Janssen Research & Development, outside the submitted work. AS is a full-time employee of Janssen and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. FD reports personal fees from Janssen Research & Development, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Janssen Research & Development, outside the submitted work. KK reports she is an employee of IQVIA. CR reports he is an employee of IQVIA. FN was an employee of AstraZeneca until 2019 and holds some AstraZeneca shares. SF is an employee of Janssen Research and Development, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. VS reports grant funding from the National Science Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Arizona Board of Regents outside of the submitted work. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government. PR reports and is employee of Janssen Research and Development and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Clinical trial registries can provide important information about relevant studies for a given condition to other researchers and the public. We developed a computerized informatics based approach to provide an overview and analysis of COVID-19 studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Using the perspective of analyzing active or completed COVID-19 studies, we identified 401 interventional clinical trials, 287 observational studies and 64 registries. We analyzed features of each study type separately such as location, design, interventions and update history. Our results show that the United States had the most COVID-19 interventional trials, France had the most COVID-19 observational studies and France and the United States tied for the most COVID-19 registries on ClinicalTrials.gov. The majority of studies in all three study types had a single study site. For update history "Study Status" is the most updated information and we found that studies located in Canada (2.70 updates per study) and the United States (1.76 updates per study) update their studies more often than studies in any other country. Using normalization and mapping techniques, we identified Hydroxychloroquine (92 studies) as the most common drug intervention, while convalescent plasma (20 studies) is the most common biological intervention. The primary purpose of most interventional trials is for treatment with 298 studies (74.3%). For COVID-19 registries we found the most common proposed follow-up time is 1 year (15 studies). Of specific importance and interest is COVID-19 vaccine trials, of which 12 were identified. Our informatics based approach allows for constant monitoring and updating as well as multiple applications to other conditions and interests., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2020 Mayer and Huser.)

Comorbid conditions appear to be common among individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but estimates of prevalence vary and little is known about the prior medication use of patients. Here, we describe the characteristics of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 and compare them with influenza patients. We include 34,128 (US: 8362, South Korea: 7341, Spain: 18,425) COVID-19 patients, summarising between 4811 and 11,643 unique aggregate characteristics. COVID-19 patients have been majority male in the US and Spain, but predominantly female in South Korea. Age profiles vary across data sources. Compared to 84,585 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, COVID-19 patients have more typically been male, younger, and with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. While protecting groups vulnerable to influenza is likely a useful starting point in the response to COVID-19, strategies will likely need to be broadened to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals being hospitalised with COVID-19.