Observational methods for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness research:an empirical evaluation and target trial emulation

Background:There are scarce data on best practices to control for confounding in observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19. We compared the performance of three well-established methods [overlap weighting, inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score (PS) matching] to minimize confounding when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Subsequently, we conducted a target trial emulation to study the ability of these methods to replicate COVID-19 vaccine trials.Methods:We included all individuals aged ≥75 from primary care records from the UK [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) AURUM], who were not infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as of 4 January 2021. Vaccination status was then defined based on first COVID-19 vaccine dose exposure between 4 January 2021 and 28 January 2021. Lasso regression was used to calculate PS. Location, age, prior observation time, regional vaccination rates, testing effort and COVID-19 incidence rates at index date were forced into the PS. Following PS weighting and matching, the three methods were compared for remaining covariate imbalance and residual confounding. Last, a target trial emulation comparing COVID-19 at 3 and 12 weeks after first vaccine dose vs unvaccinated was conducted.Results:Vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts comprised 583 813 and 332 315 individuals for weighting, respectively, and 459 000 individuals in the matched cohorts. Overlap weighting performed best in terms of minimizing confounding and systematic error. Overlap weighting successfully replicated estimates from clinical trials for vaccine effectiveness for ChAdOx1 (57%) and BNT162b2 (75%) at 12 weeks.Conclusion:Overlap weighting performed best in our setting. Our results based on overlap weighting replicate previous pivotal trials for the two first COVID-19 vaccines approved in Europe

Calculating daily dose in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model

Purpose: We aimed to develop a standardized method to calculate daily dose (i.e., the amount of drug a patient was exposed to per day) of any drug on a global scale using only drug information of typical observational data in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) and a single reference table from Observational Health Data Sciences And Informatics (OHDSI). Materials and Methods: The OMOP DRUG_STRENGTH reference table contains information on the strength or concentration of drugs, whereas the OMOP DRUG_EXPOSURE table contains information on patients' drug prescriptions or dispensations/claims. Based on DRUG_EXPOSURE data from the primary care databases Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (United Kingdom) and Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI, The Netherlands) and healthcare claims from PharMetrics® Plus for Academics (USA), we developed four formulas to calculate daily dose given different DRUG_STRENGTH reference table information. We tested the dose formulas by comparing the calculated median daily dose to the World Health Organization (WHO) Defined Daily Dose (DDD) for six different ingredients in those three databases and additional four international databases representing a variety of healthcare settings: MAITT (Estonia, healthcare claims and discharge summaries), IQVIA Disease Analyzer Germany (outpatient data), IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database Belgium (outpatient data), and IMASIS Parc Salut (Spain, hospital data). Finally, in each database, we assessed the proportion of drug records for which daily dose calculations were possible using the suggested formulas. Results: Applying the dose formulas, we obtained median daily doses that generally matched the WHO DDD definitions. Our dose formulas were applicable to >85% of drug records in all but one of the assessed databases. Conclusion: We have established and implemented a standardized daily dose calculation in OMOP CDM providing reliable and reproducible results

Clinically relevant glioblastoma patient-derived xenograft models to guide drug development and identify molecular signatures

Glioblastoma (GBM) heterogeneity, aggressiveness and infiltrative growth drastically limit success of current standard of care drugs and efficacy of various new therapeutic approaches. There is a need for new therapies and models reflecting the complex biology of these tumors to analyze the molecular mechanisms of tumor formation and resistance, as well as to identify new therapeutic targets. We established and screened a panel of 26 patient-derived subcutaneous (s.c.) xenograft (PDX) GBM models on immunodeficient mice, of which 15 were also established as orthotopic models. Sensitivity toward a drug panel, selected for their different modes of action, was determined. Best treatment responses were observed for standard of care temozolomide, irinotecan and bevacizumab. Matching orthotopic models frequently show reduced sensitivity, as the blood-brain barrier limits crossing of the drugs to the GBM. Molecular characterization of 23 PDX identified all of them as IDH-wt (R132) with frequent mutations in EGFR, TP53, FAT1, and within the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway. Their expression profiles resemble proposed molecular GBM subtypes mesenchymal, proneural and classical, with pronounced clustering for gene sets related to angiogenesis and MAPK signaling. Subsequent gene set enrichment analysis identified hallmark gene sets of hypoxia and mTORC1 signaling as enriched in temozolomide resistant PDX. In models sensitive for mTOR inhibitor everolimus, hypoxia-related gene sets reactive oxygen species pathway and angiogenesis were enriched. Our results highlight how our platform of s.c. GBM PDX can reflect the complex, heterogeneous biology of GBM. Combined with transcriptome analyses, it is a valuable tool in identification of molecular signatures correlating with monitored responses. Available matching orthotopic PDX models can be used to assess the impact of the tumor microenvironment and blood-brain barrier on efficacy. Our GBM PDX panel therefore represents a valuable platform for screening regarding molecular markers and pharmacologically active drugs, as well as optimizing delivery of active drugs to the tumor

Supporting Pharmacovigilance Signal Validation and Prioritization with Analyses of Routinely Collected Health Data: Lessons Learned from an EHDEN Network Study

Introduction: Individual case reports are the main asset in pharmacovigilance signal management. Signal validation is the first stage after signal detection and aims to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify further assessment. Throughout signal management, a prioritization of signals is continually made. Routinely collected health data can provide relevant contextual information but are primarily used at a later stage in pharmacoepidemiological studies to assess communicated signals. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and utility of analysing routine health data from a multinational distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization and to reflect on key user requirements for these analyses to become an integral part of this process. Methods: Statistical signal detection was performed in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports, targeting generic manufacturer drugs and 16 prespecified adverse events. During a 5-day study-a-thon, signal validation and prioritization were performed using information from VigiBase, regulatory documents and the scientific literature alongside descriptive analyses of routine health data from 10 partners of the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN). Databases included in the study were from the UK, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Serbia, capturing records from primary care and/or hospitals. Results: Ninety-five statistical signals were subjected to signal validation, of which eight were considered for descriptive analyses in the routine health data. Design, execution and interpretation of results from these analyses took up to a few hours for each signal (of which 15–60 minutes were for execution) and informed decisions for five out of eight signals. The impact of insights from the routine health data varied and included possible alternative explanations, potential public health and clinical impact and feasibility of follow-up pharmacoepidemiological studies. Three signals were selected for signal assessment, two of these decisions were supported by insights from the routine health data. Standardization of analytical code, availability of adverse event phenotypes including bridges between different source vocabularies, and governance around the access and use of routine health data were identified as important aspects for future development. Conclusions: Analyses of routine health data from a distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization are feasible in the given time limits and can inform decision making. The cost–benefit of integrating these analyses at this stage of signal management requires further research

Analysis of drug-drug interactions in Swiss claims data using tizanidine and ciprofloxacin as a prototypical contraindicated combination

BACKGROUND: Potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) are described in various case reports, but few studies have evaluated the impact of specific combinations on a population level. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the type and frequency of multiple contraindicated (X-pDDIs) and major interactions (D-pDDIs) and to subsequently assess the impact of the particular combination of tizanidine and ciprofloxacin on outpatient physician visits and hospitalizations. METHODS: Anonymized Swiss claims data from 524 797 patients in 2014-2015 were analyzed. First, frequencies of X- and D-pDDIs were calculated. Next, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients prescribed tizanidine and ciprofloxacin (exposed, n = 199) or tizanidine and other antibiotics (unexposed, n = 960). Hospitalizations and outpatient physician visits within 7, 14, and 30 days after initiation of antibiotic therapy were evaluated using multiple binary logistic regression and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The relative frequencies of X- and D-pDDIs were 0.4% and 6.65%, respectively. In the cohort study, significant associations between exposure to tizanidine and ciprofloxacin and outpatient physician visits were identified for 14 and 30 days (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61 [95% CI = 1.17-2.24], P = 0.004, and OR = 1.59 [95% CI = 1.1-2.34], P = 0.016). A trend for increased risk of hospitalization was found for all evaluated time periods (OR = 1.68 [95% CI = 0.84-3.17], OR = 1.52 [95% CI = 0.63-3.33], and OR = 2.19 [95% CI = 0.88-5.02]). CONCLUSION and RELEVANCE: The interaction between tizanidine and ciprofloxacin is not only relevant for individual patients, but also at the population level. Further investigation of the impact of other clinically relevant DDIs is necessary to improve patient safety and reduce avoidable health care utilization

Prediction of health care expenditure increase: how does pharmacotherapy contribute?

Background Rising health care costs are a major public health issue. Thus, accurately predicting future costs and understanding which factors contribute to increases in health care expenditures are important. The objective of this project was to predict patients healthcare costs development in the subsequent year and to identify factors contributing to this prediction, with a particular focus on the role of pharmacotherapy. Methods We used 2014–2015 Swiss health insurance claims data on 373′264 adult patients to classify individuals’ changes in health care costs. We performed extensive feature generation and developed predictive models using logistic regression, boosted decision trees and neural networks. Based on the decision tree model, we performed a detailed feature importance analysis and subgroup analysis, with an emphasis on drug classes. Results The boosted decision tree model achieved an overall accuracy of 67.6% and an area under the curve-score of 0.74; the neural network and logistic regression models performed 0.4 and 1.9% worse, respectively. Feature engineering played a key role in capturing temporal patterns in the data. The number of features was reduced from 747 to 36 with only a 0.5% loss in the accuracy. In addition to hospitalisation and outpatient physician visits, 6 drug classes and the mode of drug administration were among the most important features. Patient subgroups with a high probability of increase (up to 88%) and decrease (up to 92%) were identified. Conclusions Pharmacotherapy provides important information for predicting cost increases in the total population. Moreover, its relative importance increases in combination with other features, including health care utilisation