In 2019, the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) funded the ConcePTION project-Building an ecosystem for better monitoring and communicating safety of medicines use in pregnancy and breastfeeding: validated and regulatory endorsed workflows for fast, optimised evidence generation-with the vision that there is a societal obligation to rapidly reduce uncertainty about the safety of medication use in pregnancy and breastfeeding. The present paper introduces the set of concepts used to describe the European data sources involved in the ConcePTION project and illustrates the ConcePTION Common Data Model (CDM), which serves as the keystone of the federated ConcePTION network. Based on data availability and content analysis of 21 European data sources, the ConcePTION CDM has been structured with six tables designed to capture data from routine healthcare, three tables for data from public health surveillance activities, three curated tables for derived data on population (e.g., observation time and motherchild linkage), plus four metadata tables. By its first anniversary, the ConcePTION CDM has enabled 13 data sources to run common scripts to contribute to major European projects, demonstrating its capacity to facilitate effective and transparent deployment of distributed analytics, and its potential to address questions about utilization, effectiveness, and safety of medicines in special populations, including during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and, more broadly, in the general population.

No abstract

Background: Estimates of the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myo-/pericarditis risk vary widely across studies due to scarcity of events, especially in age- and sex-stratified analyses.Methods: Population-based cohort study with nested self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) using healthcare data from five European databases. Individuals were followed from 01/01/2020 until end of data availability (31/12/2021 latest). Outcome was first myo-/pericarditis diagnosis. Exposures were first and second dose of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines. Baseline incidence rates (IRs), and vaccine- and dose-specific IRs and rate differences were calculated from the cohort The SCRI calculated calendar time-adjusted IR ratios (IRR), using a 60-day pre-vaccination control period and dose-specific 28-day risk windows. IRRs were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.Findings: Over 35 million individuals (49·2% women, median age 39–49 years) were included, of which 57·4% received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Baseline incidence of myocarditis was low. Myocarditis IRRs were elevated after vaccination in those aged < 30 years, after both Pfizer vaccine doses (IRR = 3·3, 95%CI 1·2-9.4; 7·8, 95%CI 2·6-23·5, respectively) and Moderna vaccine dose 2 (IRR = 6·1, 95%CI 1·1-33·5). An effect of AstraZeneca vaccine dose 2 could not be excluded (IRR = 2·42, 95%CI 0·96-6·07). Pericarditis was not associated with vaccination.Interpretation: mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and potentially AstraZeneca are associated with increased myocarditis risk in younger individuals, although absolute incidence remains low. More data on children (≤ 11 years) are needed.

Validation of algorithms for selecting patients from healthcare administrative databases (HAD) is recommended. This PATHFINDER study section is aimed at testing algorithms to select rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from Tuscan HAD (THAD) and assessing RA diagnosis time interval between the medical chart date and that of THAD. A population was extracted from THAD. The information of the medical charts at the Rheumatology Unit of Pisa University Hospital represented the reference. We included first ever users of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between 2014 and 2016 (index date) with at least a specialist visit at the Rheumatology Unit of the Pisa University Hospital recorded from 2013 to the index date. Out of these, we tested four index tests (algorithms): (1) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions (ICD-9 code, 714*); (2) RA according to exemption code from co-payment (006); (3) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions AND RA according to exemption code from co-payment; (4) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions OR RA according to exemption code from co-payment. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predicted values (PPV and NPV) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and the RA diagnosis median time interval (interquartile range, IQR). Two sensitivity analyses were performed. Among 277 reference patients, 103 had RA. The fourth algorithm identified 96 true RA patients, PPV 0.78 (95% CI 0.70–0.85), sensitivity 0.93 (95% CI 0.86–0.97), specificity 0.84 (95% CI 0.78–0.90), and NPV 0.95 (95% CI 0.91–0.98). The sensitivity analyses confirmed performance. The time measured between the actual RA diagnosis date recorded in medical charts and that assumed in THAD was 2.2 years (IQR 0.5–8.4). In conclusion, this validation showed the fourth algorithm as the best. The time interval elapsed between the actual RA diagnosis date in medical charts and that extrapolated from THAD has to be considered in the design of future studies.

No abstract