Unraveling COVID-19: A Large-Scale Characterization of 4.5 Million COVID-19 Cases Using CHARYBDIS

ope

Development and Validation of the Radiology Common Data Model (R-CDM) for the International Standardization of Medical Imaging Data

Purpose: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), a standard file format for medical imaging data, contains metadata describing each file. However, metadata are often incomplete, and there is no standardized format for recording metadata, leading to inefficiency during the metadata-based data retrieval process. Here, we propose a novel standardization method for DICOM metadata termed the Radiology Common Data Model (R-CDM). Materials and methods: R-CDM was designed to be compatible with Health Level Seven International (HL7)/Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) and linked with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP)-CDM to achieve a seamless link between clinical data and medical imaging data. The terminology system was standardized using the RadLex playbook, a comprehensive lexicon of radiology. As a proof of concept, the R-CDM conversion process was conducted with 41.7 TB of data from the Ajou University Hospital. The R-CDM database visualizer was developed to visualize the main characteristics of the R-CDM database. Results: Information from 2801360 cases and 87203226 DICOM files was organized into two tables constituting the R-CDM. Information on imaging device and image resolution was recorded with more than 99.9% accuracy. Furthermore, OMOP-CDM and R-CDM were linked to efficiently extract specific types of images from specific patient cohorts. Conclusion: R-CDM standardizes the structure and terminology for recording medical imaging data to eliminate incomplete and unstandardized information. Successful standardization was achieved by the extract, transform, and load process and image classifier. We hope that the R-CDM will contribute to deep learning research in the medical imaging field by enabling the securement of large-scale medical imaging data from multinational institutions.ope

Characterizing the Anticancer Treatment Trajectory and Pattern in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Cancer Using Harmonized Observational Databases: Retrospective Study

Background: Accurate and rapid clinical decisions based on real-world evidence are essential for patients with cancer. However, the complexity of chemotherapy regimens for cancer impedes retrospective research that uses observational health databases. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the anticancer treatment trajectories and patterns of clinical events according to regimen type using the chemotherapy episodes determined by an algorithm. Methods: We developed an algorithm to extract the regimen-level abstracted chemotherapy episodes from medication records in a conventional Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) database. The algorithm was validated on the Ajou University School Of Medicine (AUSOM) database by manual review of clinical notes. Using the algorithm, we extracted episodes of chemotherapy from patients in the EHR database and the claims database. We also developed an application software for visualizing the chemotherapy treatment patterns based on the treatment episodes in the OMOP-CDM database. Using this software, we generated the trends in the types of regimen used in the institutions, the patterns of the iterative chemotherapy use, and the trajectories of cancer treatment in two EHR-based OMOP-CDM databases. As a pilot study, the time of onset of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia according to regimen was measured using the AUSOM database. The anticancer treatment trajectories for patients with COVID-19 were also visualized based on the nationwide claims database. Results: We generated 178,360 treatment episodes for patients with colorectal, breast, and lung cancer for 85 different regimens. The algorithm precisely identified the type of chemotherapy regimen in 400 patients (average positive predictive value >98%). The trends in the use of routine clinical chemotherapy regimens from 2008-2018 were identified for 8236 patients. For a total of 12 regimens (those administered to the largest proportion of patients), the number of repeated treatments was concordant with the protocols for standard chemotherapy regimens for certain cases. In addition, the anticancer treatment trajectories for 8315 patients were shown, including 62 patients with COVID-19. A comparative analysis of neutropenia showed that its onset in colorectal cancer regimens tended to cluster between days 9-15, whereas it tended to cluster between days 2-8 for certain regimens for breast cancer or lung cancer. Conclusions: We propose a method for generating chemotherapy episodes for introduction into the oncology extension module of the OMOP-CDM databases. These proof-of-concept studies demonstrated the usability, scalability, and interoperability of the proposed framework through a distributed research network.ope

Perceived Risk of Re-Identification in OMOP-CDM Database: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: The advancement of information technology has immensely increased the quality and volume of health data. This has led to an increase in observational study, as well as to the threat of privacy invasion. Recently, a distributed research network based on the common data model (CDM) has emerged, enabling collaborative international medical research without sharing patient-level data. Although the CDM database for each institution is built inside a firewall, the risk of re-identification requires management. Hence, this study aims to elucidate the perceptions CDM users have towards CDM and risk management for re-identification. Methods: The survey, targeted to answer specific in-depth questions on CDM, was conducted from October to November 2020. We targeted well-experienced researchers who actively use CDM. Basic statistics (total number and percent) were computed for all covariates. Results: There were 33 valid respondents. Of these, 43.8% suggested additional anonymization was unnecessary beyond, "minimum cell count" policy, which obscures a cell with a value lower than certain number (usually 5) in shared results to minimize the liability of re-identification due to rare conditions. During extract-transform-load processes, 81.8% of respondents assumed structured data is under control from the risk of re-identification. However, respondents noted that date of birth and death were highly re-identifiable information. The majority of respondents (n = 22, 66.7%) conceded the possibility of identifier-contained unstructured data in the NOTE table. Conclusion: Overall, CDM users generally attributed high reliability for privacy protection to the intrinsic nature of CDM. There was little demand for additional de-identification methods. However, unstructured data in the CDM were suspected to have risks. The necessity for a coordinatingope

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

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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; CI 0.62-0.98). Conclusions: In this retrospective, multicenter active-comparator, new-user, cohort study, pitavastatin reduced the risk of NODM compared with atorvastatin or rosuvastatin.ope

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 with and without prevalent hypertension: a multinational cohort study

Objective: To characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients. Design and setting: This is a retrospective cohort study using 15 healthcare databases (primary and secondary electronic healthcare records, insurance and national claims data) from the USA, Europe and South Korea, standardised to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. Data were gathered from 1 March to 31 October 2020. Participants: Two non-mutually exclusive cohorts were defined: (1) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (diagnosed cohort) and (2) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 (hospitalised cohort), and stratified by hypertension status. Follow-up was from COVID-19 diagnosis/hospitalisation to death, end of the study period or 30 days. Outcomes: Demographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported. Results: We identified 2 851 035 diagnosed and 563 708 hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Hypertension was more prevalent in the latter (ranging across databases from 17.4% (95% CI 17.2 to 17.6) to 61.4% (95% CI 61.0 to 61.8) and from 25.6% (95% CI 24.6 to 26.6) to 85.9% (95% CI 85.2 to 86.6)). Patients in both cohorts with hypertension were predominantly >50 years old and female. Patients with hypertension were frequently diagnosed with obesity, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes. Compared with patients without hypertension, patients with hypertension in the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort had more hospitalisations (ranging from 1.3% (95% CI 0.4 to 2.2) to 41.1% (95% CI 39.5 to 42.7) vs from 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) to 15.9% (95% CI 14.9 to 16.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) to 18.5% (95% CI 15.7 to 21.3) vs from 0.2% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.2) to 11.8% (95% CI 10.8 to 12.8)). Patients in the COVID-19 hospitalised cohort with hypertension were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ranging from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 65.6% (95% CI 62.5 to 68.7) vs from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 54.7% (95% CI 50.5 to 58.9)), arrhythmia (ranging from 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) to 45.8% (95% CI 42.6 to 49.0) vs from 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) to 36.8% (95% CI 32.7 to 40.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 1.8% (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2) to 25.1% (95% CI 23.0 to 27.2) vs from 0.7% (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) to 10.9% (95% CI 10.4 to 11.4)) than patients without hypertension. Conclusions: COVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension.ope

Real-world incidence of endopthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in Korea: findings from the Common Data Model in ophthalmology

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections using data from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). Methods: Patients with endophthalmitis that developed within 6 weeks after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections were identified in 3 large OMOP CDM databases. Results: We identified 23,490 patients who received 128,123 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. The incidence rates of endophthalmitis were 15.75 per 10,000 patients and 2.97 per 10,000 injections. The incidence rates of endophthalmitis for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept (per 10,000 injections) were 3.64, 1.39, and 0.76, respectively. The annual incidence has remained below 5.00 per 10,000 injections since 2011 despite the increasing number of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Bevacizumab presented a higher incidence rate for endophthalmitis than ranibizumab and aflibercept (incidence rate ratio, 3.17; p=0.021). Conclusions: The incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections has stabilized since 2011 despite the explosive increase in anti-VEGF injections. The off-label use of bevacizumab accounted for its disproportionately high incidence of endophthalmitis. The OMOP CDM, which includes off-label uses, laboratory data, and a scalable standardized database, could provide a novel strategy to reveal real-world evidence, especially in ophthalmology.ope

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.ope

Analysis of Dual Combination Therapies Used in Treatment of Hypertension in a Multinational Cohort

Importance: More than 1 billion adults have hypertension globally, of whom 70% cannot achieve their hypertension control goal with monotherapy alone. Data are lacking on clinical use patterns of dual combination therapies prescribed to patients who escalate from monotherapy. Objective: To investigate the most common dual combinations prescribed for treatment escalation in different countries and how treatment use varies by age, sex, and history of cardiovascular disease. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study used data from 11 electronic health record databases that cover 118 million patients across 8 countries and regions between January 2000 and December 2019. Included participants were adult patients (ages ≥18 years) who newly initiated antihypertensive dual combination therapy after escalating from monotherapy. There were 2 databases included for 3 countries: the Iqvia Longitudinal Patient Database (LPD) Australia and Electronic Practice-based Research Network 2019 linked data set from South Western Sydney Local Health District (ePBRN SWSLHD) from Australia, Ajou University School of Medicine (AUSOM) and Kyung Hee University Hospital (KHMC) databases from South Korea, and Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH) and National University Hospital (NUH) databases from Singapore. Data were analyzed from June 2020 through August 2021. Exposures: Treatment with dual combinations of the 4 most commonly used antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI] or angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]; calcium channel blocker [CCB]; β-blocker; and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic). Main outcomes and measures: The proportion of patients receiving each dual combination regimen, overall and by country and demographic subgroup. Results: Among 970 335 patients with hypertension who newly initiated dual combination therapy included in the final analysis, there were 11 494 patients from Australia (including 9291 patients in Australia LPD and 2203 patients in ePBRN SWSLHD), 6980 patients from South Korea (including 6029 patients in Ajou University and 951 patients in KHMC), 2096 patients from Singapore (including 842 patients in KTPH and 1254 patients in NUH), 7008 patients from China, 8544 patients from Taiwan, 103 994 patients from France, 76 082 patients from Italy, and 754 137 patients from the US. The mean (SD) age ranged from 57.6 (14.8) years in China to 67.7 (15.9) years in the Singapore KTPH database, and the proportion of patients by sex ranged from 24 358 (36.9%) women in Italy to 408 964 (54.3%) women in the US. Among 12 dual combinations of antihypertensive drug classes commonly used, there were significant variations in use across country and patient subgroup. For example starting an ACEI or ARB monotherapy followed by a CCB (ie, ACEI or ARB + CCB) was the most commonly prescribed combination in Australia (698 patients in ePBRN SWSLHD [31.7%] and 3842 patients in Australia LPD [41.4%]) and Singapore (216 patients in KTPH [25.7%] and 439 patients in NUH [35.0%]), while in South Korea, CCB + ACEI or ARB (191 patients in KHMC [20.1%] and 1487 patients in Ajou University [24.7%]), CCB + β-blocker (814 patients in Ajou University [13.5%] and 217 patients in KHMC [22.8%]), and ACEI or ARB + CCB (147 patients in KHMC [15.5%] and 1216 patients in Ajou University [20.2%]) were the 3 most commonly prescribed combinations. The distribution of 12 dual combination therapies were significantly different by age and sex in almost all databases. For example, use of ACEI or ARB + CCB varied from 873 of 3737 patients ages 18 to 64 years (23.4%) to 343 of 2292 patients ages 65 years or older (15.0%) in South Korea's Ajou University database (P for database distribution by age < .001), while use of ACEI or ARB + CCB varied from 2121 of 4718 (44.8%) men to 1721 of 4549 (37.7%) women in Australian LPD (P for drug combination distributions by sex < .001). Conclusions and relevance: In this study, large variation in the transition between monotherapy and dual combination therapy for hypertension was observed across countries and by demographic group. These findings suggest that future research may be needed to investigate what dual combinations are associated with best outcomes for which patients.ope

Comparative risk of incidence and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 among proton pump inhibitor and histamine-2 receptor antagonist short-term users: a nationwide retrospective cohort study

Background: This study aimed to evaluate incidence risk and adverse clinical outcomes in COVID-19 disease among short-term users of acid-suppressants in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective cohort study, conducted using a nationwide claims database for South Korea, used data from patients with COVID-19 tested between January 1 and May 15, 2020. Patients aged over 18 years and prescribed proton pump inhibitors (PPI) or histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) for more than 7 days were identified. Primary outcome was COVID-19 while secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization with respiratory disease, or intensive respiratory intervention. Large-scale propensity scores were used to match patients, while the Cox proportional hazard model was utilized to evaluate any association between exposure and outcome(s). The risk estimates were calibrated by using 123 negative control outcomes. Results: We identified 26,166 PPI users and 62,117 H2RA users. After propensity score matching, compared to H2RA use, PPI use was not significantly associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (calibrated hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-2.19]); moreover, PPI use was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes in COVID-19, namely, hospitalization with respiratory disease (calibrated HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.08]), intensive respiratory interventions (calibrated HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.46-1.82]), except for all-cause mortality (calibrated HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.95]). Conclusions: In this study, we found that the PPI user was not associated with risk of COVID-19 compared to H2RA users. There was no significant relationship between severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 and exposure to PPI compared with H2RA, except for all-cause mortality.ope