Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts.

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

Monitoring moisture content for various kind of tea leaves in drying processes using rf reflectometer-sensor system

This paper presents tea leaves moisture monitoring system based on RF reflectometry techniques. The system was divided into two parts which are the sensor and reflectometer parts. The large coaxial probe was used as a sensor for the system. The reflectometer part plays a role as signal generator and also data acquisition. The reflectometer-sensor system was operated with a graphical user interface at 1.529 GHz at room temperature. The system was able to measure the moisture content of tea leaves ranging 0% m.c to 50% m.c on a wet basis. In this study, up to five kinds of tea leaves bulk were tested. The mean of absolute errors in the moisture measurement for tea leaves was ±2

A standardized analytics pipeline for reliable and rapid development and validation of prediction models using observational health data

Background and objective: As a response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several prediction models in the existing literature were rapidly developed, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance. However, none of these COVID-19 prediction models have been found to be reliable. Models are commonly assessed to have a risk of bias, often due to insufficient reporting, use of non-representative data, and lack of large-scale external validation. In this paper, we present the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modeling as a standardized approach for rapid yet reliable development and validation of prediction models. We demonstrate how our analytics pipeline and open-source software tools can be used to answer important prediction questions while limiting potential causes of bias (e.g., by validating phenotypes, specifying the target population, performing large-scale external validation, and publicly providing all analytical source code). Methods: We show step-by-step how to implement the analytics pipeline for the question: ‘In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, what is the risk of death 0 to 30 days after hospitalization?’. We develop models using six different machine learning methods in a USA claims database containing over 20,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and externally validate the models using data containing over 45,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations from South Korea, Spain, and the USA. Results: Our open-source software tools enabled us to efficiently go end-to-end from problem design to reliable Model Development and evaluation. When predicting death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, AdaBoost, random forest, gradient boosting machine, and decision tree yielded similar or lower internal and external validation discrimination performance compared to L1-regularized logistic regression, whereas the MLP neural network consistently resulted in lower discrimination. L1-regularized logistic regression models were well calibrated. Conclusion: Our results show that following the OHDSI analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modelling can enable the rapid development towards reliable prediction models. The OHDSI software tools and pipeline are open source and available to researchers from all around the world.</p

Ranitidine Use and Incident Cancer in a Multinational Cohort

Importance: Ranitidine, the most widely used histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), was withdrawn because of N-nitrosodimethylamine impurity in 2020. Given the worldwide exposure to this drug, the potential risk of cancer development associated with the intake of known carcinogens is an important epidemiological concern. Objective: To examine the comparative risk of cancer associated with the use of ranitidine vs other H2RAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This new-user active comparator international network cohort study was conducted using 3 health claims and 9 electronic health record databases from the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, South Korea, and Taiwan. Large-scale propensity score (PS) matching was used to minimize confounding of the observed covariates with negative control outcomes. Empirical calibration was performed to account for unobserved confounding. All databases were mapped to a common data model. Database-specific estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. Participants included individuals aged at least 20 years with no history of cancer who used H2RAs for more than 30 days from January 1986 to December 2020, with a 1-year washout period. Data were analyzed from April to September 2021. Exposure: The main exposure was use of ranitidine vs other H2RAs (famotidine, lafutidine, nizatidine, and roxatidine). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incidence of any cancer, except nonmelanoma skin cancer. Secondary outcomes included all cancer except thyroid cancer, 16 cancer subtypes, and all-cause mortality. Results: Among 1 183 999 individuals in 11 databases, 909 168 individuals (mean age, 56.1 years; 507 316 [55.8%] women) were identified as new users of ranitidine, and 274 831 individuals (mean age, 58.0 years; 145 935 [53.1%] women) were identified as new users of other H2RAs. Crude incidence rates of cancer were 14.30 events per 1000 person-years (PYs) in ranitidine users and 15.03 events per 1000 PYs among other H2RA users. After PS matching, cancer risk was similar in ranitidine compared with other H2RA users (incidence, 15.92 events per 1000 PYs vs 15.65 events per 1000 PYs; calibrated meta-analytic hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12). No significant associations were found between ranitidine use and any secondary outcomes after calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, ranitidine use was not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with the use of other H2RAs. Further research is needed on the long-term association of ranitidine with cancer development.</p

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner.Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes-diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services-using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis.Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71-1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services.Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers-further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.</p

Impact of pitavastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin: a distributed network analysis of 10 real-world databases

Statin treatment increases the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM); however, data directly comparing the risk of NODM among individual statins is limited. We compared the risk of NODM between patients using pitavastatin and atorvastatin or rosuvastatin using reliable, large-scale data. Data of electronic health records from ten hospitals converted to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (n = 14,605,368 patients) were used to identify new users of pitavastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin (atorvastatin + rosuvastatin) for ≥ 180 days without a previous history of diabetes or HbA1c level ≥ 5.7%. We conducted a cohort study using Cox regression analysis to examine the hazard ratio (HR) of NODM after propensity score matching (PSM) and then performed an aggregate meta-analysis of the HR. After 1:2 PSM, 10,238 new pitavastatin users (15,998 person-years of follow-up) and 18,605 atorvastatin + rosuvastatin users (33,477 person-years of follow-up) were pooled from 10 databases. The meta-analysis of the HRs demonstrated that pitavastatin resulted in a significantly reduced risk of NODM than atorvastatin + rosuvastatin (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59–0.87). In sub-analysis, pitavastatin was associated with a lower risk of NODM than atorvastatin or rosuvastatin after 1:1 PSM (HR 0.69; CI 0.54–0.88 and HR 0.74; CI 0.55–0.99, respectively). A consistently low risk of NODM in pitavastatin users was observed when compared with low-to-moderate-intensity atorvastatin + rosuvastatin users (HR 0.78; CI0.62–0.98). In this retrospective, multicenter active-comparator, new-user, cohort study, pitavastatin reduced the risk of NODM compared with atorvastatin or rosuvastatin

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19:an international, open science, cohort analysis

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.Methods: In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.Findings: Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of &gt;40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.Interpretation: No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.</p

Implementation of the COVID-19 vulnerability index across an international network of health care data sets:Collaborative external validation study

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the "prediction model risk of bias assessment" criteria, and it has not been externally validated.Objective: The aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases.Methods: We followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia.Results: The internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68.Conclusions: Our results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.</p

Multinational patterns of second line antihyperglycaemic drug initiation across cardiovascular risk groups:federated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM

Objective: To assess the uptake of second line antihyperglycaemic drugs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are receiving metformin.Design: Federated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM.Setting: 10 US and seven non-US electronic health record and administrative claims databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network in eight countries from 2011 to the end of 2021.Participants: 4.8 million patients (≥18 years) across US and non-US based databases with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had received metformin monotherapy and had initiated second line treatments.Exposure: The exposure used to evaluate each database was calendar year trends, with the years in the study that were specific to each cohort.Main outcomes measures: The outcome was the incidence of second line antihyperglycaemic drug use (ie, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sulfonylureas) among individuals who were already receiving treatment with metformin. The relative drug class level uptake across cardiovascular risk groups was also evaluated.Results: 4.6 million patients were identified in US databases, 61 382 from Spain, 32 442 from Germany, 25 173 from the UK, 13 270 from France, 5580 from Scotland, 4614 from Hong Kong, and 2322 from Australia. During 2011-21, the combined proportional initiation of the cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) increased across all data sources, with the combined initiation of these drugs as second line drugs in 2021 ranging from 35.2% to 68.2% in the US databases, 15.4% in France, 34.7% in Spain, 50.1% in Germany, and 54.8% in Scotland. From 2016 to 2021, in some US and non-US databases, uptake of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased more significantly among populations with no cardiovascular disease compared with patients with established cardiovascular disease. No data source provided evidence of a greater increase in the uptake of these two drug classes in populations with cardiovascular disease compared with no cardiovascular disease.Conclusions: Despite the increase in overall uptake of cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs as second line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus, their uptake was lower in patients with cardiovascular disease than in people with no cardiovascular disease over the past decade. A strategy is needed to ensure that medication use is concordant with guideline recommendations to improve outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.</p