Precision public-health intervention for care coordination: a real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Health emergencies disproportionally affect vulnerable populations. Digital tools can help primary care providers find, and reach, the right patients. AIM: To evaluate whether digital interventions delivered directly to GPs' clinical software were more effective at promoting primary care appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic than interventions delivered by post. DESIGN AND SETTING: Real-world, non-randomised, interventional study involving GP practices in all Australian states. METHOD: Intervention material was developed to promote care coordination for vulnerable older veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic, and sent to GPs either digitally to the clinical practice software system or in the post. The intervention material included patient-specific information sent to GPs to support care coordination, and education material sent via post to veterans identified in the administrative claims database. To evaluate the impact of intervention delivery modalities on outcomes, the time to first appointment with the primary GP was measured; a Cox proportional hazards model was used, adjusting for differences and accounting for pre-intervention appointment numbers. RESULTS: The intervention took place in April 2020, during the first weeks of COVID-19 social distancing restrictions in Australia. GPs received digital messaging for 51 052 veterans and postal messaging for 26 859 veterans. The digital group was associated with earlier appointments (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38 [1.34 to 1.41]). CONCLUSION: Data-driven digital solutions can promote care coordination at scale during national emergencies, opening up new perspectives for precision public-health initiatives.

Risk factors predictive of adverse drug events and drug-related falls in aged care residents: secondary analysis from the ReMInDAR trial.

BACKGROUND: Residents of aged-care facilities have high rates of adverse drug events. This study aimed to identify risk factors for adverse drug events in aged-care residents. METHOD: This was a secondary study using data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Data from 224 residents for whom there was 6 months of baseline information were analysed. We assessed the risk of adverse drug events and falls (post hoc) in the subsequent 6 months. Adverse events were identified via a key word search of the resident care record and adjudicated by a multidisciplinary panel using a modified version of the Naranjo criteria. Covariates identified through univariable logistic regression, including age, sex, medicines, physical activity, cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), previous adverse events and health service use were included in multivariable models. RESULTS: Overall, 224 residents were included, with a mean age of 86 years; 70% were female. 107 (48%) residents had an adverse drug event during the 6-month follow-up. Falls and bleeding were experienced by 73 (33%) and 28 (13%) residents, respectively. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.10), weight (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.002-1.04), previous fall (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.34-4.98) and sedative or hypnotic medicine use (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.52-2.60) were associated with increased risk of adverse drug events. Increased cognition (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95) was protective. Risk factors for falls were previous fall (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.68-6.35) and sedative or hypnotic medicines (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.14-8.16). Increased cognition (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.95) was protective. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest residents with a previous fall, reduced cognition, and prescription of sedative or hypnotic medicines were at higher risk of adverse drug events and should be considered for proactive prevention.

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.

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.

Seek COVER: using a disease proxy to rapidly develop and validate a personalized risk calculator for COVID-19 outcomes in an international network.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether we could use influenza data to develop prediction models for COVID-19 to increase the speed at which prediction models can reliably be developed and validated early in a pandemic. We developed COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patient's risk of hospital admission with pneumonia (COVER-H), hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms and tested this in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries containing data collected on or before 4/27/2020. We used a 2-step process to develop 3 scores using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The first step was to create a data-driven model using LASSO regularized logistic regression, the covariates of which were used to develop aggregate covariates for the second step where the COVER scores were developed using a smaller set of features. These 3 COVER scores were then externally validated on patients with 1) influenza or flu-like symptoms and 2) confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across 5 databases from South Korea, Spain, and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death, and iii) death in the 30 days after index date. RESULTS: Overall, 44,507 COVID-19 patients were included for model validation. We identified 7 predictors (history of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease) which combined with age and sex discriminated which patients would experience any of our three outcomes. The models achieved good performance in influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. For COVID-19 the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69-0.81, COVER-I: 0.73-0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72-0.90. Calibration varied across the validations with some of the COVID-19 validations being less well calibrated than the influenza validations. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrated the utility of using a proxy disease to develop a prediction model. The 3 COVER models with 9-predictors that were developed using influenza data perform well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality. The scores showed good discriminatory performance which transferred well to the COVID-19 population. There was some miscalibration in the COVID-19 validations, which is potentially due to the difference in symptom severity between the two diseases. A possible solution for this is to recalibrate the models in each location before use.

Generating Real-World Evidence on the Quality Use, Benefits and Safety of Medicines in Australia: History, Challenges and a Roadmap for the Future.

Australia spends more than $20 billion annually on medicines, delivering significant health benefits for the population. However, inappropriate prescribing and medicine use also result in harm to individuals and populations, and waste of precious health resources. Medication data linked with other routine collections enable evidence generation in pharmacoepidemiology; the science of quantifying the use, effectiveness and safety of medicines in real-world clinical practice. This review details the history of medicines policy and data access in Australia, the strengths of existing data sources, and the infrastructure and governance enabling and impeding evidence generation in the field. Currently, substantial gaps persist with respect to cohesive, contemporary linked data sources supporting quality use of medicines, effectiveness and safety research; exemplified by Australia's limited capacity to contribute to the global effort in real-world studies of vaccine and disease-modifying treatments for COVID-19. We propose a roadmap to bolster the discipline, and population health more broadly, underpinned by a distinct capability governing and streamlining access to linked data assets for accredited researchers. Robust real-world evidence generation requires current data roadblocks to be remedied as a matter of urgency to deliver efficient and equitable health care and improve the health and well-being of all Australians.

Suitability of databases in the Asia-Pacific for collaborative monitoring of vaccine safety.

INTRODUCTION: Information regarding availability of electronic healthcare databases in the Asia-Pacific region is critical for planning vaccine safety assessments particularly, as COVID-19 vaccines are introduced. This study aimed to identify data sources in the region, potentially suitable for vaccine safety surveillance. This manuscript is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE). METHODS: Nineteen countries targeted for database reporting were identified using published country lists and review articles. Surveillance capacity was assessed using two surveys: a 9-item introductory survey and a 51-item full survey. Survey questions related to database characteristics, covariate and health outcome variables, vaccine exposure characteristics, access and governance, and dataset linkage capability. Other questions collated research/regulatory applications of the data and local publications detailing database use for research. RESULTS: Eleven databases containing vaccine-specific information were identified across 8 countries. Databases were largely national in coverage (8/11, 73%), encompassed all ages (9/11, 82%) with population size from 1.4 to 52 million persons. Vaccine exposure information varied particularly for standardized vaccine codes (5/11, 46%), brand (7/11, 64%) and manufacturer (5/11, 46%). Outcome data were integrated with vaccine data in 6 (55%) databases and available via linkage in 5 (46%) databases. Data approval processes varied, impacting on timeliness of data access. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in vaccine data availability, complexities in data access including, governance and data release approval procedures, together with requirement for data linkage for outcome information, all contribute to the challenges in building a distributed network for vaccine safety assessment in the Asia-Pacific and globally. Common data models (CDMs) may help expedite vaccine safety research across the region.

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 >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. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.

Responding to the Under-Utilisation of Necessary Health Care in the Time of COVID-19: A Precision Public Health intervention.

The Veterans' Medicines Advice and Therapeutics Education Services (MATES) program is a national data driven, behaviorally informed, health intervention to improve the use of medicines among Australian veterans. The program, which has been operating since 2004, has led the way in the use of government held data assets to generate evidenced-based health information, which, when provided to clinicians alongside educational materials, can make demonstrable improvements in health and promote practice change.