Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1772832

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Algorithms for classification of inpatient COVID-19 severity are necessary for confounding control in studies using real-world data. METHODS: Using Healthverity chargemaster and claims data, we selected patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between April 2020 and February 2021, and classified them by severity at admission using an algorithm we developed based on respiratory support requirements (supplemental oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, O2/NIV, invasive mechanical ventilation, IMV, or NEITHER). To evaluate the utility of the algorithm, patients were followed from admission until death, discharge, or a 28-day maximum to report mortality risks and rates overall and by stratified by severity. Trends for heterogeneity in mortality risk and rate across severity classifications were evaluated using Cochran-Armitage and Logrank trend tests, respectively. RESULTS: Among 118,117 patients, the algorithm categorized patients in increasing severity as NEITHER (36.7%), O2/NIV (54.3%), and IMV (9.0%). Associated mortality risk (and 95% CI) was 11.8% (11.6-12.0%) overall and increased with severity [3.4% (3.2- 3.5%), 11.5% (11.3-11.8%), 47.3% (46.3-48.2%); p<0.001]. Mortality rate per 1000 person-days (and 95% CI) was 15.1 (14.9-15.4) overall and increased with severity [5.7 (5.4- 6.0), 14.5 (14.2-14.9), 32.7 (31.8-33.6); p<0.001]. CONCLUSION: As expected, we observed a positive association between the algorithm-defined severity on admission and 28-day mortality risk and rate. Although performance remains to be validated, this provides some assurance that this algorithm may be used for confounding control or stratification in treatment effect studies.

2.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 111(1): 122-134, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1706461

ABSTRACT

To complement real-world evidence (RWE) guidelines, the 2019 Structured Preapproval and Postapproval Comparative study design framework to generate valid and transparent real-world Evidence (SPACE) framework elucidated a process for designing valid and transparent real-world studies. As an extension to SPACE, here, we provide a structured framework for conducting feasibility assessments-a step-by-step guide to identify decision grade, fit-for-purpose data, which complements the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s framework for a RWE program. The process was informed by our collective experience conducting systematic feasibility assessments of existing data sources for pharmacoepidemiology studies to support regulatory decisions. Used with the SPACE framework, the Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (SPIFD) provides a systematic process for conducting feasibility assessments to determine if a data source is fit for decision making, helping ensure justification and transparency throughout study development, from articulation of a specific and meaningful research question to identification of fit-for-purpose data and study design.


Subject(s)
Data Collection , Feasibility Studies , COVID-19/drug therapy , Decision Making , Humans , Research Design , Varenicline/adverse effects
3.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248128, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Data Management/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
4.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 109(4): 816-828, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059420

ABSTRACT

The emergence and global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in an urgent need for evidence on medical interventions and outcomes of the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 are already in progress, the number of clinical questions of interest greatly outpaces the available resources to conduct RCTs. Therefore, there is growing interest in whether nonrandomized real-world evidence (RWE) can be used to supplement RCT evidence and aid in clinical decision making, but concerns about nonrandomized RWE have been highlighted by a proliferation of RWE studies on medications and COVID-19 outcomes with widely varying conclusions. The objective of this paper is to review some clinical questions of interest, potential data types, challenges, and merits of RWE in COVID-19, resulting in recommendations for nonrandomized RWE designs and analyses based on established RWE principles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Research Design/standards , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Drug Therapy, Combination , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Insurance Claim Review/statistics & numerical data , Macrolides/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL