Search

BackgroundAdverse 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.MethodsA 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.FindingsSubstantial 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.InterpretationOur 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.FundingNone.

Post-approval safety surveillance of medical products using observational healthcare data can help identify safety issues beyond those found in pre-approval trials. When testing sequentially as data accrue, maximum sequential probability ratio testing (MaxSPRT) is a common approach to maintaining nominal type 1 error. However, the true type 1 error may still deviate from the specified one because of systematic error due to the observational nature of the analysis. This systematic error may persist even after controlling for known confounders. Here we propose to address this issue by combing MaxSPRT with empirical calibration. In empirical calibration, we assume uncertainty about the systematic error in our analysis, the source of uncertainty commonly overlooked in practice. We infer a probability distribution of systematic error by relying on a large set of negative controls: exposure-outcome pairs where no causal effect is believed to exist. Integrating this distribution into our test statistics has previously been shown to restore type 1 error to nominal. Here we show how we can calibrate the critical value central to MaxSPRT. We evaluate this novel approach using simulations and real electronic health records, using H1N1 vaccinations during the 2009-2010 season as an example. Results show that combining empirical calibration with MaxSPRT restores nominal type 1 error. In our real-world example, adjusting for systematic error using empirical calibration has a larger impact than, and hence is just as essential as, adjusting for sequential testing using MaxSPRT. We recommend performing both, using the method described here.

IntroductionTherapeutic options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have expanded over the last decade with the emergence of cardioprotective novel agents, but without such data for older drugs, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the relative effects of T2DM agents on cardiovascular risk.Methods and analysisThe large-scale evidence generations across a network of databases for T2DM (LEGEND-T2DM) initiative is a series of systematic, large-scale, multinational, real-world comparative cardiovascular effectiveness and safety studies of all four major second-line anti-hyperglycaemic agents, including sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and sulfonylureas. LEGEND-T2DM will leverage the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) community that provides access to a global network of administrative claims and electronic health record data sources, representing 190 million patients in the USA and about 50 million internationally. LEGEND-T2DM will identify all adult, patients with T2DM who newly initiate a traditionally second-line T2DM agent. Using an active comparator, new-user cohort design, LEGEND-T2DM will execute all pairwise class-versus-class and drug-versus-drug comparisons in each data source, producing extensive study diagnostics that assess reliability and generalisability through cohort balance and equipoise to examine the relative risk of cardiovascular and safety outcomes. The primary cardiovascular outcomes include a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events and a series of safety outcomes. The study will pursue data-driven, large-scale propensity adjustment for measured confounding, a large set of negative control outcome experiments to address unmeasured and systematic bias.Ethics and disseminationThe study ensures data safety through a federated analytic approach and follows research best practices, including prespecification and full disclosure of results. LEGEND-T2DM is dedicated to open science and transparency and will publicly share all analytic code from reproducible cohort definitions through turn-key software, enabling other research groups to leverage our methods, data and results to verify and extend our findings.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.893484.].

Background: Routinely collected healthcare data such as administrative claims and electronic health records (EHR) can complement clinical trials and spontaneous reports to detect previously unknown risks of vaccines, but uncertainty remains about the behavior of alternative epidemiologic designs to detect and declare a true risk early. Methods: Using three claims and one EHR database, we evaluate several variants of the case-control, comparative cohort, historical comparator, and self-controlled designs against historical vaccinations using real negative control outcomes (outcomes with no evidence to suggest that they could be caused by the vaccines) and simulated positive control outcomes. Results: Most methods show large type 1 error, often identifying false positive signals. The cohort method appears either positively or negatively biased, depending on the choice of comparator index date. Empirical calibration using effect-size estimates for negative control outcomes can bring type 1 error closer to nominal, often at the cost of increasing type 2 error. After calibration, the self-controlled case series (SCCS) design most rapidly detects small true effect sizes, while the historical comparator performs well for strong effects. Conclusion: When applying any method for vaccine safety surveillance we recommend considering the potential for systematic error, especially due to confounding, which for many designs appears to be substantial. Adjusting for age and sex alone is likely not sufficient to address differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the cohort method the choice of index date is important for the comparability of the groups. Analysis of negative control outcomes allows both quantification of the systematic error and, if desired, subsequent empirical calibration to restore type 1 error to its nominal value. In order to detect weaker signals, one may have to accept a higher type 1 error.

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.

Background and objectiveAs 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsOur 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.ConclusionOur 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.

[Figure: see text].

ObjectiveThe current observational research literature shows extensive publication bias and contradiction. The Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) initiative seeks to improve research reproducibility through open science.MethodsOHDSI has created an international federated data source of electronic health records and administrative claims that covers nearly 10% of the world's population. Using a common data model with a practical schema and extensive vocabulary mappings, data from around the world follow the identical format. OHDSI's research methods emphasize reproducibility, with a large-scale approach to addressing confounding using propensity score adjustment with extensive diagnostics; negative and positive control hypotheses to test for residual systematic error; a variety of data sources to assess consistency and generalizability; a completely open approach including protocol, software, models, parameters, and raw results so that studies can be externally verified; and the study of many hypotheses in parallel so that the operating characteristics of the methods can be assessed.ResultsOHDSI has already produced findings in areas like hypertension treatment that are being incorporated into practice, and it has produced rigorous studies of COVID-19 that have aided government agencies in their treatment decisions, that have characterized the disease extensively, that have estimated the comparative effects of treatments, and that the predict likelihood of advancing to serious complications.ConclusionsOHDSI practices open science and incorporates a series of methods to address reproducibility. It has produced important results in several areas, including hypertension therapy and COVID-19 research.

[Figure: see text].

Using real-world data and past vaccination data, we conducted a large-scale experiment to quantify bias, precision and timeliness of different study designs to estimate historical background (expected) compared to post-vaccination (observed) rates of safety events for several vaccines. We used negative (not causally related) and positive control outcomes. The latter were synthetically generated true safety signals with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.5 to 4. Observed vs. expected analysis using within-database historical background rates is a sensitive but unspecific method for the identification of potential vaccine safety signals. Despite good discrimination, most analyses showed a tendency to overestimate risks, with 20%-100% type 1 error, but low (0% to 20%) type 2 error in the large databases included in our study. Efforts to improve the comparability of background and post-vaccine rates, including age-sex adjustment and anchoring background rates around a visit, reduced type 1 error and improved precision but residual systematic error persisted. Additionally, empirical calibration dramatically reduced type 1 to nominal but came at the cost of increasing type 2 error.

ObjectivesTo 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 methodsLEGEND 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).ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionWe 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.

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.

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.

Healthcare professionals increasingly rely on observational healthcare data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, to estimate the causal effects of interventions. However, limited prior studies raise concerns about the real-world performance of the statistical and epidemiological methods that are used. We present the "OHDSI Methods Benchmark" that aims to evaluate the performance of effect estimation methods on real data. The benchmark comprises a gold standard, a set of metrics, and a set of open source software tools. The gold standard is a collection of real negative controls (drug-outcome pairs where no causal effect appears to exist) and synthetic positive controls (drug-outcome pairs that augment negative controls with simulated causal effects). We apply the benchmark using four large healthcare databases to evaluate methods commonly used in practice: the new-user cohort, self-controlled cohort, case-control, case-crossover, and self-controlled case series designs. The results confirm the concerns about these methods, showing that for most methods the operating characteristics deviate considerably from nominal levels. For example, in most contexts, only half of the 95% confidence intervals we calculated contain the corresponding true effect size. We previously developed an "empirical calibration" procedure to restore these characteristics and we also evaluate this procedure. While no one method dominates, self-controlled methods such as the empirically calibrated self-controlled case series perform well across a wide range of scenarios.

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.

The case-control design is widely used in retrospective database studies, often leading to spectacular findings. However, results of these studies often cannot be replicated, and the advantage of this design over others is questionable. To demonstrate the shortcomings of applications of this design, we replicate two published case-control studies. The first investigates isotretinoin and ulcerative colitis using a simple case-control design. The second focuses on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and acute pancreatitis, using a nested case-control design. We include large sets of negative control exposures (where the true odds ratio is believed to be 1) in both studies. Both replication studies produce effect size estimates consistent with the original studies, but also generate estimates for the negative control exposures showing substantial residual bias. In contrast, applying a self-controlled design to answer the same questions using the same data reveals far less bias. Although the case-control design in general is not at fault, its application in retrospective database studies, where all exposure and covariate data for the entire cohort are available, is unnecessary, as other alternatives such as cohort and self-controlled designs are available. Moreover, by focusing on cases and controls it opens the door to inappropriate comparisons between exposure groups, leading to confounding for which the design has few options to adjust for. We argue that this design should no longer be used in these types of data. At the very least, negative control exposures should be used to prove that the concerns raised here do not apply.

BackgroundPropensity score adjustment is a popular approach for confounding control in observational studies. Reliable frameworks are needed to determine relative propensity score performance in large-scale studies, and to establish optimal propensity score model selection methods.MethodsWe detail a propensity score evaluation framework that includes synthetic and real-world data experiments. Our synthetic experimental design extends the 'plasmode' framework and simulates survival data under known effect sizes, and our real-world experiments use a set of negative control outcomes with presumed null effect sizes. In reproductions of two published cohort studies, we compare two propensity score estimation methods that contrast in their model selection approach: L1-regularized regression that conducts a penalized likelihood regression, and the 'high-dimensional propensity score' (hdPS) that employs a univariate covariate screen. We evaluate methods on a range of outcome-dependent and outcome-independent metrics.ResultsL1-regularization propensity score methods achieve superior model fit, covariate balance and negative control bias reduction compared with the hdPS. Simulation results are mixed and fluctuate with simulation parameters, revealing a limitation of simulation under the proportional hazards framework. Including regularization with the hdPS reduces commonly reported non-convergence issues but has little effect on propensity score performance.ConclusionsL1-regularization incorporates all covariates simultaneously into the propensity score model and offers propensity score performance superior to the hdPS marginal screen.

Concerns over reproducibility in science extend to research using existing healthcare data; many observational studies investigating the same topic produce conflicting results, even when using the same data. To address this problem, we propose a paradigm shift. The current paradigm centres on generating one estimate at a time using a unique study design with unknown reliability and publishing (or not) one estimate at a time. The new paradigm advocates for high-throughput observational studies using consistent and standardized methods, allowing evaluation, calibration and unbiased dissemination to generate a more reliable and complete evidence base. We demonstrate this new paradigm by comparing all depression treatments for a set of outcomes, producing 17 718 hazard ratios, each using methodology on par with current best practice. We furthermore include control hypotheses to evaluate and calibrate our evidence generation process. Results show good transitivity and consistency between databases, and agree with four out of the five findings from clinical trials. The distribution of effect size estimates reported in the literature reveals an absence of small or null effects, with a sharp cut-off at p = 0.05. No such phenomena were observed in our results, suggesting more complete and more reliable evidence.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The growing ubiquity of algorithms in society: implications, impacts and innovations'.

Objective:To develop a conceptual prediction model framework containing standardized steps and describe the corresponding open-source software developed to consistently implement the framework across computational environments and observational healthcare databases to enable model sharing and reproducibility. Methods:Based on existing best practices we propose a 5 step standardized framework for: (1) transparently defining the problem; (2) selecting suitable datasets; (3) constructing variables from the observational data; (4) learning the predictive model; and (5) validating the model performance. We implemented this framework as open-source software utilizing the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model to enable convenient sharing of models and reproduction of model evaluation across multiple observational datasets. The software implementation contains default covariates and classifiers but the framework enables customization and extension. Results:As a proof-of-concept, demonstrating the transparency and ease of model dissemination using the software, we developed prediction models for 21 different outcomes within a target population of people suffering from depression across 4 observational databases. All 84 models are available in an accessible online repository to be implemented by anyone with access to an observational database in the Common Data Model format. Conclusions:The proof-of-concept study illustrates the framework's ability to develop reproducible models that can be readily shared and offers the potential to perform extensive external validation of models, and improve their likelihood of clinical uptake. In future work the framework will be applied to perform an "all-by-all" prediction analysis to assess the observational data prediction domain across numerous target populations, outcomes and time, and risk settings.

Observational healthcare data, such as electronic health records and administrative claims, offer potential to estimate effects of medical products at scale. Observational studies have often been found to be nonreproducible, however, generating conflicting results even when using the same database to answer the same question. One source of discrepancies is error, both random caused by sampling variability and systematic (for example, because of confounding, selection bias, and measurement error). Only random error is typically quantified but converges to zero as databases become larger, whereas systematic error persists independent from sample size and therefore, increases in relative importance. Negative controls are exposure-outcome pairs, where one believes no causal effect exists; they can be used to detect multiple sources of systematic error, but interpreting their results is not always straightforward. Previously, we have shown that an empirical null distribution can be derived from a sample of negative controls and used to calibrate P values, accounting for both random and systematic error. Here, we extend this work to calibration of confidence intervals (CIs). CIs require positive controls, which we synthesize by modifying negative controls. We show that our CI calibration restores nominal characteristics, such as 95% coverage of the true effect size by the 95% CI. We furthermore show that CI calibration reduces disagreement in replications of two pairs of conflicting observational studies: one related to dabigatran, warfarin, and gastrointestinal bleeding and one related to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We recommend CI calibration to improve reproducibility of observational studies.

Recent adverse event reports have raised the question of increased angioedema risk associated with exposure to levetiracetam. To help address this question, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics research network conducted a retrospective observational new-user cohort study of seizure patients exposed to levetiracetam (n = 276,665) across 10 databases. With phenytoin users (n = 74,682) as a comparator group, propensity score-matching was conducted and hazard ratios computed for angioedema events by per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses. Angioedema events were rare in both the levetiracetam and phenytoin groups (54 vs. 71 in per-protocol and 248 vs. 435 in intent-to-treat). No significant increase in angioedema risk with levetiracetam was seen in any individual database (hazard ratios ranging from 0.43 to 1.31). Meta-analysis showed a summary hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.31) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.52-0.79) for the per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses, respectively. The results suggest that levetiracetam has the same or lower risk for angioedema than phenytoin, which does not currently carry a labeled warning for angioedema. Further studies are warranted to evaluate angioedema risk across all antiepileptic drugs.

Clinical trials often lack power to identify rare adverse drug events (ADEs) and therefore cannot address the threat rare ADEs pose, motivating the need for new ADE detection techniques. Emerging national patient claims and electronic health record databases have inspired post-approval early detection methods like the Bayesian self-controlled case series (BSCCS) regression model. Existing BSCCS models do not account for multiple outcomes, where pathology may be shared across different ADEs. We integrate a pathology hierarchy into the BSCCS model by developing a novel informative hierarchical prior linking outcome-specific effects. Considering shared pathology drastically increases the dimensionality of the already massive models in this field. We develop an efficient method for coping with the dimensionality expansion by reducing the hierarchical model to a form amenable to existing tools. Through a synthetic study we demonstrate decreased bias in risk estimates for drugs when using conditions with different true risk and unequal prevalence. We also examine observational data from the MarketScan Lab Results dataset, exposing the bias that results from aggregating outcomes, as previously employed to estimate risk trends of warfarin and dabigatran for intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding. We further investigate the limits of our approach by using extremely rare conditions. This research demonstrates that analyzing multiple outcomes simultaneously is feasible at scale and beneficial.

Observational research promises to complement experimental research by providing large, diverse populations that would be infeasible for an experiment. Observational research can test its own clinical hypotheses, and observational studies also can contribute to the design of experiments and inform the generalizability of experimental research. Understanding the diversity of populations and the variance in care is one component. In this study, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) collaboration created an international data network with 11 data sources from four countries, including electronic health records and administrative claims data on 250 million patients. All data were mapped to common data standards, patient privacy was maintained by using a distributed model, and results were aggregated centrally. Treatment pathways were elucidated for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and depression. The pathways revealed that the world is moving toward more consistent therapy over time across diseases and across locations, but significant heterogeneity remains among sources, pointing to challenges in generalizing clinical trial results. Diabetes favored a single first-line medication, metformin, to a much greater extent than hypertension or depression. About 10% of diabetes and depression patients and almost 25% of hypertension patients followed a treatment pathway that was unique within the cohort. Aside from factors such as sample size and underlying population (academic medical center versus general population), electronic health records data and administrative claims data revealed similar results. Large-scale international observational research is feasible.

The vision of creating accessible, reliable clinical evidence by accessing the clincial experience of hundreds of millions of patients across the globe is a reality. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) has built on learnings from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership to turn methods research and insights into a suite of applications and exploration tools that move the field closer to the ultimate goal of generating evidence about all aspects of healthcare to serve the needs of patients, clinicians and all other decision-makers around the world.