RESEARCH PROTOCOL: Large-scale evidence generation and evaluation across a network of databases for type 2 diabetes mellitus ============================================================================================================================ * Rohan Khera * Martijn J Scheumie * Yuan Lu * Anna Ostropolets * Ruijun Chen * George Hripcsak * Patrick B Ryan * Harlan M Krumholz * Marc A Suchard ## Abstract **Background** Therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have expanded over the last decade with the emergence of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists, which reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Cardiovascular evidence for older second-line agents, such as sulfonylureas, and direct head-to-head comparisons, including with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, are lacking, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the relative effects of T2DM agents on cardiovascular risk and on patient-centered safety outcomes. **Methods and Analysis** The Large-Scale Evidence Generations Across a Network of Databases for T2DM (LEGEND-T2DM) initiative is a series of systematic, large-scale, multinational, real-world comparative cardiovascular effectiveness and safety studies of all 4 major second-line anti-hyperglycemic agents including SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP1 receptor agonist, DPP4 inhibitor and sulfonylureas. LEGEND-T2DM will leverage the Observational Health Data Science and Informatics (OHDSI) community that provides access to a global network of administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data sources. Committed data partners represent 190 million patients in the US and about 50 million internationally. LEGEND-T2DM will identify all adult, T2DM patients who newly initiate a traditionally second-line T2DM agent, including individuals with and without established cardiovascular disease. Using an active comparator, new-user cohort design, LEGEND-T2DM will execute all pairwise class-vs-class and drug-vs-drug comparisons in each data source that meet a minimum patient count of 1,000 per arm and extensive study diagnostics that assess reliability and generalizability through cohort balance and equipoise to examine the relative risk of cardiovascular and safety outcomes. The primary cardiovascular outcomes include a 3-point and a 4-point composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, and series of safety outcomes. The study will pursue data-driven, large-scale propensity adjustment for measured confounding, a large set of negative control outcome experiments to address unmeasured and systematic bias. **Ethics and Dissemination** The study ensures data safety through a federated analytic approach and follows research best practices, including prespecification and full disclosure of hypotheses tested and their results. LEGEND-T2DM is dedicated to open science and transparency and will publicly share all our analytic code from reproducible cohort definitions through turn-key software, enabling other research groups to leverage our methods, data, and results in order to verify and extend our findings. ## 1 Rationale and Background The landscape of therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been dramatically transformed over the last decade [1]. The emergence of drugs targeting the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor has expanded the role of T2DM agents from lowering blood glucose to directly reducing cardiovascular risk [2]. A series of large randomized clinical trials designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists found that use of many of these agents led to a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality [3–6]. However, other T2DM drugs widely used before the introduction of these novel agents, such as sulfonylureas, did not undergo similarly comprehensive trials to evaluate their cardiovascular efficacy or safety. Moreover, direct comparisons of newer agents with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, with neutral effects on major cardiovascular outcomes [7–10], have not been conducted. Nevertheless, DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas continue to be used in clinical practice and are recommended as second-line T2DM agents in national clinical practice guidelines. Several challenges remain in formulating T2DM treatment recommendations based on existing evidence [11]. First, trials of novel agents did not pursue head-to-head comparisons to older agents and were instead designed as additive treatments on the background of commonly used T2DM agents. Therefore, the relative cardiovascular efficacy and safety of novel compared with older agents is not known, and indirect estimates have relied on summary-level data restricted to common comparators [12–14] and are less reliable [15, 16]. Second, trials of novel agents have tested individual drugs against placebo, but have not directly compared SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP1 receptor agonists in reducing adverse cardiovascular event risk. Moreover, there is no evidence to guide the use of individual drugs within each class and across different drug classes, particularly among patients at lower cardiovascular risk than recruited in clinical trials. Third, randomized trials focused on cardiovascular efficacy and safety, but were not powered to adequately assess the safety of these agents across a spectrum of non-cardiovascular outcomes. Finally, restricted enrollment across regions, and subgroups of age, sex, and race further limits the efficacy and safety assessment that may guide individual patients’ treatment. Evidence gaps from these trials also pose a challenge in designing treatment algorithms, which rely on comparative effectiveness and safety of drugs. Perhaps, as a result, there is large variation in clinical practice guidelines and in clinical practice with regard to these medications, with many patients initiated on the newer therapies and many others treated with older regimens [17–21]. Among the second-line options, there is much variation with respect to the order of drugs used. This lack of consensus about the best approach provides an opportunity for systematic, large-scale observational studies. ## 2 Study Objectives To inform critical decisions facing patients with diabetes, their caregivers, clinicians, policymakers and healthcare system leaders, we have launched the Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases for Diabetes (LEGEND-T2DM) initiative to execute a series of comprehensive observational studies to compare cardiovascular outcome rates and safety of second-line T2DM glucose-lowering agents. Specifically, these studies aim 1. To determine, through systematic evaluation, the comparative effectiveness of traditionally second-line T2DM agents, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists, with each other and with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas, for cardiovascular outcomes. 2. To determine, through systematic evaluation, the comparative safety of traditionally second-line T2DM agents among patients with T2DM. 3. To assess heterogeneity in effectiveness and safety of traditionally second-line T2DM agents among key patient subgroups: Using stratified patient cohorts, we will quantify differential effectiveness and safety across subgroups of patients based on age, sex, race, renal impairment, and baseline cardiovascular risk. ## 3 Research Methods LEGEND-T2DM will execute three systematic, large-scale observational studies of second-line T2DM agents to estimate the relative risks of cardiovascular effectiveness and safety outcomes. 1. The **Class-vs-Class Study** will provide all pairwise comparisons between the four major T2DM agent classes to evaluate their comparative effects on cardiovascular risk (Objective 1) and patient-centered safety outcomes (Objective 2); 2. The **Drug-vs-Drug Study** will furnish head-to-head pairwise comparisons between individual agents within and across classes (both Objectives 1 and 2); and The **Heterogeneity Study** will refine these comparisons for T2DM patients for important subgroups (Objective 3). In contrast to a single comparison approach, LEGEND-T2DM will provide a comprehensive view of the findings and their consistency across populations, drugs, and outcomes. We will model each study on our successful collaborative research evaluating the comparative effectiveness of antihypertensives recently published in *The Lancet* [22]. Table 1 list the four major T2DM agent classes and the individual agents licensed in the U5.S+.6+w4it+h7in each class. We will examine all ![Graphic][1] class-wise comparisons and all ![Graphic][2] ingredient-wise comparisons. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T1) Table 1: T2DM drug classes and individual agents within each class View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T2) Table 2: Committed LEGEND-T2DM data sources and the populations they cover. For each comparison, we are interested in the relative risk of each of the cardiovascular and safety outcomes listed in Table 3. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T3) Table 3: LEGEND-T2DM study outcomes ### 3.1 Study Design For each study, we will employ an active comparator, new-user cohort design [23–25]. New-user cohort design is advocated as the primary design to be considered for comparative effectiveness and drug safety [26–28]. By identifying patients who start a new treatment course and using therapy initiation as the start of follow-up, the new-user design models an randomized controlled trial (RCT) where treatment commences at the index study visit. Exploiting such an index date allows a clear separation of baseline patient characteristics that occur prior to index date and are usable as covariates in the analysis without concern of inadvertently introducing mediator variables that arise between exposure and outcome [29]. Excluding prevalent users as those without a sufficient washout period prior to first exposure occurrence further reduces bias due to balancing mediators on the causal pathway, time-varying hazards, and depletion of susceptibles [28, 30]. Our systematic framework across studies further will address residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using data-driven, large-scale propensity adjustment for measured confounding [31], a large set of negative control outcome experiments to address unmeasured and systematic bias [32–34], and full disclosure of hypotheses tested [35]. Figure 1 illustrates our design for all studies that the following sections describe in more detail. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/F1) Figure 1: Schematic of LEGEND-T2DM new-user cohort design for the Class-vs-Class, Drug-vs-Drug and Heterogeneity studies. ### 3.2 Data Sources We will execute LEGEND-T2DM as a series of OHDSI network studies. All data partners within OHDSI are encouraged to participate voluntarily and can do so conveniently, because of the community’s shared Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) and OHDSI tool-stack. Many OHDSI community data partners have already committed to participate and we will recruit further data partners through OHDSI’s standard recruitment process, which includes protocol publication on OHDSI’s GitHub, an announcement in OHDSI’s research forum, presentation at the weekly OHDSI all-hands-on meeting and direct requests to data holders. Table 2 lists the 13 already committed data sources for LEGEND-T2DM; these sources encompass a large variety of practice types and populations. For each data source, we report a brief description and size of the population it represents and its patient capture process and start date. While the earliest patient capture begins in 1989 (CUIMC), the vast majority come from the mid-2000s to today, providing almost two decades of T2DM treatment coverage. US populations include those commercially and publicly insured, enriched for older individuals (MDCR, VA), lower socioeconomic status (MDCD), and racially diverse (VA >20% Black or African American, CUIMC 8%). The US data sources may capture the same patients across multiple sources. Different views of the same patients are an advantage in capturing the diversity of real-world health events that patients experience. Across CCAE (commercially insured), MCDR (Medicare) and MCDC (Medicaid), we expect little overlap in terms of the same observations recorded at the same time for a patient; patients can flow between sources (e.g., a CCAE patient who retires can opt-in to become an MDCR patient), but the enrollment time periods stand distinct. On the other hand, Op-tum, PanTher, OpenClaims, CUIMC and YNHHS may overlap in time with the other US data sources. While it remains against licensing agreements to attempt to link patients between most data sources, Optum reports <20% overlap between their claims and EHR data sources that is reassuringly small. All data sources will receive institutional review board approval or exemption for their participation before executing LEGEND-T2DM. ### 3.3 Study Population We will include all subjects in a data source who meet inclusion criteria for one or more traditionally second-line T2DM agent exposure cohorts. Broadly, these cohorts will consist of T2DM patients either with or without prior metformin monotherapy who initiate treatment with one of the 22 drug ingredients that comprise the DPP4 inhibitor, GLP1 receptor agonist, SGT2 inhibitor and sulfonylurea drug classes (Table 1). We do not consider thiazolidinediones given their known association with a risk of heart failure and bladder cancer [36, 37]. We describe specific definitions for exposure cohorts for each study in the following sections. ### 3.4 Exposure Comparators #### 3.4.1 Class-vs-Class Study comparisons The **Class-vs-Class** Study will construct four exposure cohorts for new-users of any drug ingredient within the four traditionally second-line drug classes in Table 1. Cohort entry (index date) for each patient is their first observed exposure to any drug ingredient for the four second-line drug classes. Consistent with an idealized target trial for T2DM therapy and cardiovascular risk [38, 39], inclusion criteria for patients based on the index date will include: * T2DM diagnosis and no Type 1 or secondary diabetes mellitus diagnosis before the index date; * At least 1 year of observation time before the index date (to improve new-user sensitivity); and * No prior drug exposure to a comparator second-line or other antihyperglycemic agent (i.e. thiazolidinediones, acarbose, acetohexamide, bromocriptine, glibornuride, miglitol and nateglinide) or 30 days insulin exposure before index date. We will construct and compare separately cohorts patients either with * At least 3 months of metformin use before the index date, * No prior metformin use before the index date. In the first case, three months of metformin is consistent with ADA guidelines [40]. In the second case, we are interested in relative effectiveness and safety of these traditionally second-line agents in patients who initiate their treatments without first using metformin. We purposefully do not automatically exclude or restrict to patients with a history of myocardial infarction, stroke or other major cardiovascular events, which will allow us to report relative effectiveness and safety for individuals with both low or moderate and high cardiovascular risk. Likewise, we do not automatically exclude or restrict to individuals with severe renal impairment [41]. We will use cohort diagnostics, such as achieving covariate balance and clinical empirical equipoise between exposure cohorts (Section 4) and stakeholder input to guide the possible need to exclude other prior diagnoses, such as congestive heart failure, pancreatitis or cancer [41]. Appendix A.1 reports the complete OHDSI ATLAS cohort description for new-users of DDP4 inhibitors with prior metformin use. This description lists complete specification of cohort entry events, additional inclusion criteria, cohort exit events, and all associated standard OMOP CDM concept code sets used in the definition. We generate programmatically equivalent cohort definitions for new-others of each drug class with and without prior metformin use. ATLAS then automatically translates these definitions into network-deployable SQL source code. Appendix A.2 lists the inclusion criteria modifier for no prior metformin use. Of note, the inclusion criteria do not directly incorporate quantitative measures of poor glycemic control, such as one or more elevated serum HbA1c measurements; such laboratory values are irregularly captured in large claims and even EHR data sources. Older ADA guidelines (but not since 2020 for patients with cardiovascular disease [42]) advise escalating to a second-line agent only when glycemic control is not met with metformin monotherapy, nicely mirroring our cohort design for our historical data. We will conduct sensitivity analyses involving available HbA1c measurements to demonstrate their bal-surements ≥ within 6 months before the index [39]. We will also conduct sensitivity For each data source, we will then execute all ![Graphic][3] class comparisons forof patients strongly suggest data source-specific differences in prescribing practices that may introduce residual bias and sufficient samples sizes are required to construct effective propensity score models [43]. #### 3.4.2 Drug-vs-Drug Study comparisons The **Drug-vs-Drug Study** will construct exposure cohorts for new-users of each drug ingredient in Table 1. We will apply the same cohort definition, inclusion criteria and patient count minimum as described in Section 3.4.1. For each data source, we will then execute all ![Graphic][4] pairwise drug comparisons. While we will publicly report studies results for all pairwise comparisons, we will focus primary clinical interpretation and scientific publishing to the ![Graphic][5] ![Graphic][6] comparisons that pit drugs within the same class against each other, as well as acrossclass comparisons that stakeholders deem pertinent given their experiences. Appendix A.5 reports the complete OHDSI ATLAS cohort description for new-users of aloglipitin with prior metformin use. Again, we programmatically construct all new-user drug-level cohort and automatically translate into SQL. #### 3.4.3 Heterogeneity Study comparisons The **Heterogeneity Study** will further stratify all 237 classand drug-level exposure cohorts in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 by clinically important patient characteristics that modify cardiovascular risk or relative treatment heterogeneity to provide patient-focused treatment recommendations. These factors will include: * Age (18 - 44 / 45 - 64 / 65 at the index date) * Gender (women / men) * Race (African American or black) * Cardiovascular risk (low or moderate/high, defined by established cardiovascular disease at the index date) * Renal impairment (at the index date) We will define patients at high cardiovascular risk as those who fulfill at index date an established cardiovascular disease (CVD) definition that has been previously developed and validated for risk stratification among new-users of second-line T2DM agents [44]. Under this definition, established CVD means having at least 1 diagnosis code for a condition indicating cardiovascular disease, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart disease or peripheral vascular disease, or having undergone at least 1 procedure indicating cardiovascular disease, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft or revascularization, any time on or prior to the exposure start. Likewise, we will define renal impairment through diagnosis codes for chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease, dialysis procedures, and laboratory measurements of estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine and urine albumin. Appendix A.4 presents complete OHDSI ATLAS specifications for these subgroups, including all standard OMOP CDM concept codes defining cardiovascular risk and renal disease. #### 3.4.4 Validation We will validate exposure cohorts and aggregate drug utilization using comprehensive cohort characterization tools against both claims and EHR data sources. Chief among these tools stands OHDSI’s CohortDiagnostic package (github). For any cohort and data source mapped to OMOP CDM, this package systematically generates incidence new-user rates (stratified by age, gender, and calendar year), cohort characteristics (all comorbidities, drug use, procedures, health utilization) and the actual codes found in the data triggering the various rules in the cohort definitions. This can allow researchers and stakeholders to understand the heterogeneity of source coding for exposures and health outcomes as well as the impact of various inclusion criteria on overall cohort counts (details described in Section 4). ### 3.5 Outcomes Across all data sources and pairwise exposure cohorts, we will assess relative risks of 32 cardiovascular and patient-centered outcomes (Table 3). Primary outcomes of interest are: * 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death, and * 4-point MACE that additionally includes heart failure hospitalization. * outcomes include: * individual MACE components, * acute renal failure, * revascularization In data sources with laboratory measurements, secondary outcomes further include: * glycemic control, and * measured renal dysfunction * will also study second-line T2DM drug side-effects and safety concerns highlighted in the 2018 ADA guidelines [40] and from RCTs, including: * abnormal weight change, * genitourinary (GU) infection, * various cancers, and * hypoglycemia. We will employ the same level of systematic rigor in studying outcomes regardless of their primary or secondary label. A majority of outcome definitions have been previously implemented and validated in our own work [22,44–48] based heavily on prior development by others (see references in Table 3 [44–101]). To assess across-source consistency and general clinical validity, we will characterize outcome incidence, stratified by age, sex and index year for each data source. ### 3.6 Analysis #### 3.6.1 Contemporary utilization of drug classes and individual agents For all cohorts in the three studies, we will describe overall utilization as well as temporal trends in the use of each drug class and agents within the class. Further, we will eavaluate these trends in patient groups by age (18-44 / 45-64 / ≥ years), gender, race and For all cohorts in the three studies, we will describe overall utilization as well as temporal trends in the use of each drug class and agents within the class. Further, we will evaluate 65 geographic regions. Since the emergence of novel medications in the management of type 2 DM in 2014, there has been a rapid expansion in both the number of drug classes and individual agents. These data will provide insight into the current patterns of use and possible disparities. These data are critical to guide the real-world application of treatment decision pathways for the treatment of T2DM patients. Specifically, we will calculate and validate aggregate drug utilization using the OHDSI’s CohortDiagnostic package against both claims and EHR data sources. The CohortDiagnostics package works in two steps: 1) Generate the utilization results and diagnostics against a data source and 2) Explore the generated utilization and diagnostics in a userfriendly graphical interface R-Shiny app. Through the interface, one can explore patient profiles of a random sample of subjects in a cohort. These diagnostics provide a consistent methodology to evaluate cohort definitions/phenotype algorithms across a variety of observational databases. This will enable researchers and stakeholders to become informed on the appropriateness of including specific data sources within analyses, exposing potential risks related to heterogeneity and variability in patient care delivery that, when not addressed in the design, could result in errors such as highly correlated covariates in propensity score matching of a target and a comparator cohort. Thus, the added value of this approach is two-fold in terms of exposing data quality for a study question and ensuring face validity checks are performed on proposed covariates to be used for balancing propensity scores. #### 3.6.2 Relative risk of cardiovascular and patient-centered outcomes For all three studies, we will execute a systematic process to estimate the relative risk of cardiovascular and patient-centered outcomes between new-users of second-line T2DM agents. The process will adjust for measured confounding, control from further residual (unmeasured) bias and accommodate important design choices to best emulate the nearly impossible to execute, idealized RCT that our stakeholders envision across data source populations, comparators, outcomes and subgroups. To adjust for potential measured confounding and improve the balance between cohorts, we will build large-scale propensity score (PS) models [102] for each pairwise comparison and data source using a consistent data-driven process through regularized regression [31]. This process engineers a large set of predefined baseline patient characteristics, including age, gender, race, index month/year and other demographics and prior conditions, drug exposures, procedures, laboratory measurements and health service utilization behaviors, to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance patient cohorts across many characteristics. Construction of condition, drug, procedures and observations include occurrences within 365, 180 and 30 days prior to index date and are aggregated at several SNOMED (conditions) and ingredient/ATC class (drugs) levels. Other demographic measures include comorbidity risk scores (Charlson, DCSI, CHADS2, CHAD2VASc). From prior work, feature counts have ranged in the 1,000s - 10,000s, and these large-scale PS models have outperformed hdPS [103] in simulation and real-world examples [31]. We will: * Exclude patients who have experienced the outcome prior to their index date, * Stratify and variable-ratio match patients by PS, and * Use Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) between alternative target and comparator treatments for the risk of each outcome in each data source. The regression will condition on the PS strata/matching-unit with treatment allocation as the sole explanatory variable and censor patients at the end of their time-at-risk (TAR) or data source observation period. We will prefer stratification over matching if both sufficiently balance patients (see Section 4), as the former optimizes patient inclusions and thus generalizability. We will execute each comparison using three different TAR definitions, reflecting different and important causal contrasts: * Intent-to-treat (TAR: index + 1 → end of observation) captures both direct treatment effects and (long-term) behavioral/treatment changes that initial assignment triggers [104]; * On-treatment-1 (TAR: index + 1 → treatment discontinuation) is more patient-centered [105] and captures direct treatment effect while allowing for escalation with additional T2DM agents; and * On-treatment-2 (TAR: index + 1 → discontinuation or escalation with T2DM agents) carries the least possible confounding with other concurrent T2DM agents. Our “on-treatment” is often called “per-protocol” [106]. Systematically executing with multiple causal contrasts enables us to identify potential biases that missing prescription data, treatment escalation and behavioral changes introduce, while preserving the ease of intent-to-treat interpretation and power if the data demonstrate them as unbiased. Appendix A.3 reports the modified cohort exit rule for the on-treatment-2 TAR. We will aggregate HR estimates across non-overlapping data sources to produce metaanalytic estimates using a random-effects meta-analysis [107]. This classic meta-analysis assumes that per-data source likelihoods are approximately normally distributed [108]. This assumption fails when outcomes are rare as we expect for some safety events. Here, our recent research shows that as the number of data sources increases, the non-normality effect increases to where coverage of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) can be as low as 5%. To counter this, we will also apply a Bayesian meta-analysis model [109, 110] that neither assumes normality nor requires patient-level data sharing by building on composite likelihood methods [111] and enables us to introduce appropriate overlap weights between data sources. Residual study bias from unmeasured and systematic sources often remains in observational studies even after controlling for measured confounding through PS-adjustment [32, 33]. For each comparison-outcome effect, we will conduct negative control (falsification) outcome experiments, where the null hypothesis of no effect is believed to be true, using approximately 100 controls. We identified these controls through a data-rich algorithm [112] that identifies prevalent OMOP condition concept occurrences that lack evidence of association with exposures in published literature, drug-product labeling and spontaneous reports, and were then adjudicated by clinical review. We previously validated 60 of the controls in LEGEND-HTN [22]. Appendix C lists these negative controls and their OMOP condition concept IDs. Using the empirical null distributions from these experiments, we will calibrate each study effect HR estimate, its 95% CI and the *p*-value to reject the null hypothesis of no differential effect [34]. We will declare an HR as significantly different from no effect when its calibrated *p* < 0.05 without correcting for multiple testing. Finally, blinded to all trial results, study investigators will evaluate study diagnostics for all comparisons to assess if they were likely to yield unbiased estimates (Section 4). #### 3.6.3 Sensitivity analyses and missingness Because of the potential confounding effect of glycemic control at baseline between treatment choice and outcomes and to better understand the impact of limited glucose level measurements on effectiveness and safety estimation that arises in administrative claims and some EHR data, we will perform pre-specified sensitivity analyses for all studies within data sources that contain reliable glucose or hemoglobin A1c measurements. Within a study, for each exposure pair, we will first rebuild PS models where we additionally include baseline glucose or hemoglobin A1c measurements as patient characteristics, stratify or match patients under the new PS models that directly adjust for potential confounding by glycemic control and then estimate effectiveness and safety HRs. A limitation of the Cox model is that no doubly robust procedure is believed to exist for estimating HRs, due to their non-collapsibility [113]. Doubly robust procedures combine baseline patient characteristic-adjusted outcome and PS models to control for confounding and, in theory, remain unbiased when either (but not necessarily both) model is correctly specified [114]. Doubly robust procedures do exist for hazard differences [113] and we will validate the appropriateness of our univariable Cox modeling by comparing estimate differences under an additive hazards model [116] with and without doubly robust-adjustment [117]. In practice, however, neither the outcome nor PS model is correctly specified, leading to systematic error in the observational setting. Missing data of potential concern are patient demographics (gender, age, race) for our inclusion criteria. We will include only individuals whose baseline eligibility can be characterized that will most notably influence race subgroup assessments in the **Heterogeneity Study**. No further missing data can arise in our large-scale PS models because all features, with the exception of demographics, simply indicate the presence or absence of health records in a given time-period. Finally, we limit the impact of missing data, such as prescription information, relating to exposure time-at-risk by entertaining multiple definitions [29]. In all reports, we will clearly tabulate numbers of missing observations and patient attrition. ## 4 Sample Size and Study Power Within each data source, we will execute all comparisons with 1,000 eligible patients per arm. Blinded to effect estimates, investigators and stakeholders will evaluate extensive study diagnostics for each comparison to assess reliability and generalizability, and only report risk estimates that pass [25, 35]. These diagnostics will include 1. Minimum detectable risk ratio (MDRR) as a typical proxy for power, 2. Preference score distributions to evaluate empirical equipoise10 and population generalizability, 3. Extensive patient characteristics to evaluate cohort balance before and after PSadjustment, 4. Negative control calibration plots to assess residual bias, and 5. Kaplan-Meier plots to examine hazard ratio proportionality assumptions. We will define cohorts to stand in empirical equipoise if the majority of patients carry preference scores between 0.3 and 0.7 and to achieve balance if all after-adjustment characteristics return absolute standardized mean differences 0.1 [118]. ## 5 Strengths and Limitations ### 5.1 Strengths LEGEND-T2DM is, to our knowledge, the largest and most comprehensive study to provide evidence about the comparative effectiveness and safety of second-line T2DM agents. The LEGEND-T2DM studies will encompass over 1 million patients initiating second-line T2DM agents across at least 13 databases from 5 countries and will examine all pairwise comparisons between the four second-line drug classes against a panel of TODO health outcomes. Through an international network, LEGEND-T2DM seeks to take advantage of disparate health databases drawn from different sources and across a range of countries and practice settings. These large-scale and unfiltered populations better represent real-world practice than the restricted study populations in prescribed treatment and follow-up settings from RCTs. Our use of the OMOP CDM allows extension of the LEGEND-T2DM experiment to future databases and allows replication of these results on licensable databases that were used in this experiment, while still maintaining patient privacy on patient-level data. LEGEND-T2DM further advances the statistically rigorous and empirically validated methods we have developed in OHDSI that specifically address bias inherent in observational studies and allow for reliable causal inference. Patient characteristics and their treatment choices are likely to confound comparative effectiveness and safety estimates. Our approach combines active comparator new-user designs that emulate randomized clinical trials with large-scale propensity adjustment for measured confounding, a large set of negative control outcome experiments to address unmeasured and systematic bias, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested. Each LEGEND-T2DM aim will represent evidence synthesis from a large number of bespoke studies across multiple data sources. Addressing questions one bespoke study at a time is prone to errors arising from multiple testing, random variation in effect estimates and publication bias. LEGEND-T2DM is designed to avoid these concerns through methodologic best practices [119] with full study diagnostics and external replication. Through open science, LEGEND-T2DM will allow any interested investigators to engage as partners in our work at many levels. We will publicly develop all protocols and analytic code. This invites additional data custodians to participate in LEGEND-T2DM and enables others to modify and reuse our approach for other investigations. We will also host realtime access to all study result artifacts for outside analysis and interpretation. Such an open science framework ensures a feed-forward effect on other scientific contributions in the community. Collectively, LEGEND-T2DM will generate patient-centered, high quality, generalizable evidence that will transform the clinical management of T2DM through our active collaboration with patients, clinicians, and national medical societies. LEGENDT2DM will spur scientific innovation through the generation of open-source resources in data science. ### 5.2 Limitations Even though many potential confounders will be included in these studies, there may be residual bias due to unmeasured or misspecified confounders, such as confounding by indication, differences in physician characteristics that may be associated with drug choice, concomitant use of other drugs started after the index date, and informative censoring at the end of the on-treatment periods. To minimize this risk, we will use methods to detect residual bias through a large number of negative and positive controls. Ideal negative controls carry identical confounding between exposures and the outcome of interest [120]. The true confounding structure, however, is unknowable. Instead of attempting to find the elusive perfect negative control, we will rely on a large sample of controls that represent a wide range of confounding structures. If a study comparison proves to be unbiased for all negative controls, we can feel confident that it will also be unbiased for the outcome of interest. In our previous studies [22,25,121], using the active comparator, new-user cohort design we will employ here, we have observed minimal residual bias using negative controls. This stands in stark contrast to other designs such as the (nested) case-control that tends to show large residual bias because of incomparable exposure cohorts implied by the design [122]. Observed follow-up times are limited and variable, potentially reducing power to detect differences in effectiveness and safety and, further, misclassification of study variables is unavoidable in secondary use of health data, so it is possible to misclassify treatments, covariates, and outcomes. Based on our previous successful studies on antihypertensives, we do not expect differential misclassification, and therefore bias will most likely be towards the null. Finally, the electronic health record databases may be missing care episodes for patients due to care outside the respective health systems. Such bias, however, will also most likely be towards the null. ## 6 Protection of Human Subjects LEGEND-T2DM does not involve human subjects research. The project does, however, use human data collected during routine healthcare provision. Most often the data are de-identified within data source. All data partners executing the LEGEND-T2DM studies within their data sources will have received institutional review board (IRB) approval or waiver for participation in accordance to their institutional governance prior to execution (see Table 4). LEGEND-T2DM executes across a federated and distributed data network, where analysis code is sent to participating data partners and only aggregate summary statistics are returned, with no sharing of patient-level data between organizations. View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T4) Table 4: IRB approval or waiver statement from partners. ## 7 Management and Reporting of Adverse Events and Adverse Reactions LEGEND-T2DM uses coded data that already exist in electronic databases. In these types of databases, it is not usually possible to link (i.e., identify a potential causal association between) a particular product and medical event for any specific individual. Thus, the minimum criteria for reporting an adverse event (i.e., identifiable patient, identifiable reporter, a suspect product and event) are not available and adverse events are not reportable as individual adverse event reports. The study results will be assessed for medically important findings. ## 8 Plans for Disseminating and Communicating Study Results Open science aims to make scientific research, including its data process and software, and its dissemination, through publication and presentation, accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional [123] and is a governing principle of LEGENDT2DM. Open science delivers reproducible, transparent and reliable evidence. All aspects of LEGEND-T2DM (except private patient data) will be open and we will actively encourage other interested researchers, clinicians and patients to participate. This differs fundamentally from traditional studies that rarely open their analytic tools or share all result artifacts, and inform the community about hard-to-verify conclusions at completion. ### 8.1 Transparent and re-usable research tools We will publicly register this protocol and announce its availability for feedback from stakeholders, the OHDSI community and within clinical professional societies. This protocol will link to open source code for all steps to generating diagnostics, effect estimates, figures and tables. Such transparency is possible because we will construct our studies on top of the OHDSI toolstack of open source software tools that are community developed and rigorously tested [25]. We will publicly host LEGEND-T2DM source code at ([https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/LegendT2dm](https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/LegendT2dm)), allowing public contribution and review, and free re-use for anyone’s future research. ### 8.2 Continous sharing of results LEGEND-T2DM embodies a new approach to generating evidence from healthcare data that overcome weaknesses in the current process of answering and publishing (or not) one question at a time. Generating evidence for thousands of research and control questions using a systematic process enables us to not only evaluate that process and the coherence and consistency of the evidence, but also to avoid *p*-hacking and publication bias [35]. We will store and openly communicate all of these results as they become available using a user-friendly web-based app that serves up all descriptive statistics, study diagnostics and effect estimates for each cohort comparison and outcome. Open access to this app will be through a general public facing LEGEND-T2DM webpage. ### 8.3 Scientific meetings and publications We will deliver multiple presentations annually at scientific venues including the annual meetings of the American Diabetes Association, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association and American Medical Informatics Association. We will also prepare multiple scientific publications for clinical, informatics and statistical journals. ### 8.4 General public We believe in sharing our findings that will guide clinical care with the general public. LEGEND-T2DM will use social-media (Twitter) to facilitate this. With dedicated support from the OHDSI communications specialist, we will deliver regular press releases at key project stages, distributed via the extensive media networks of UCLA, Columbia and Yale. ## Data Availability The study relies on a federated analytic model where the data reside with the source. The code for the study will be publicly available but the data can only be obtained in partnership with individuals and organizations included as data sources. ## Disclosures This study is undertaken within Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI), an open collaboration. **RK** is a founder of Evidence2Health, and receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health. **MJS** and **PBR** are employees of Janssen Research and Development and shareholders in John & Johnson. **GH** receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food & Drug Administration and contracts from Janssen Research and Development. **HMK** receives grants from the US Food & Drug Administration, Medtronics and Janssen Research and Development, is co-founder of HugoHealth and chairs the Cardiac Scientific Advisory Board for UnitedHealth. **MAS** receives grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Food & Drug Administration and contracts from Janssen Research and Development and IQVIA. ## Appendix ### A Exposure Cohort Definitions #### A.1 Class-vs-Class Exposure (DPP4 New-User) Cohort / OT1 ##### A.1.1 Cohort Entry Events People with continuous observation of 365 days before event may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. drug exposure of ‘DPP4 inhibitors’ for the first time in the person’s history. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. Restrict entry events to with all of the following criteria: 1. with the following event criteria: who are >= 18 years old. 2. having at least 1 condition occurrence of ‘Type 2 diabetes mellitus’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 3. having no condition occurrences of ‘Type 1 diabetes mellitus’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 4. having no condition occurrences of ‘Secondary diabetes mellitus’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.1.2 Additional Inclusion Criteria * No prior GLP-1 receptor agonist exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘GLP-1 receptor agonists’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior SGLT-2 inhibitor exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘SGLT2 inhibitors’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior SU exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘Sulfonylureas’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior other anti-diabetic exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘Other anti-diabetics’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * Prior metformin use Entry events with any of the following criteria: 1. having at least 1 drug era of ‘Metformin’, starting anytime up to 90 days before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period; with era length >= 90 days. 2. having at least 3 drug exposures of ‘Metformin’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 3. No prior insulin use or combo initiation: Proxy for < 30 days drug era anytime before index and no combination use on index Entry events with all of the following criteria: 1. having no drug eras of ‘Insulin’, starting anytime up to 30 days before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period; with era length > 30 days. 2. having no drug eras of ‘Insulin’, starting between 30 days before and 0 days after cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.1.3 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be based on a continuous exposure to ‘DPP4 inhibitors’: allowing 30 days between exposures, adding 0 days after exposure ends, and using days supply and exposure end date for exposure duration. ##### A.1.4 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### A.1.5 Concept: DPP4 inhibitors View this table: [Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T5) ##### A.1.6 Concept: GLP-1 receptor agonists View this table: [Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T6) ##### A.1.7 Concept: SGLT2 inhibitors View this table: [Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T7) ##### A.1.8 Concept: Sulfonylureas View this table: [Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T8) ##### A.1.9 Concept: Other anti-diabetics View this table: [Table9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T9) ##### A.1.10 Concept: Insulin View this table: [Table10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T10) ##### A.1.11 Concept: Metformin View this table: [Table11](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T11) ##### A.1.12 Concept: Secondary diabetes mellitus View this table: [Table12](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T12) ##### A.1.13 Concept: Type 1 diabetes mellitus View this table: [Table13](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T13) ##### A.1.14 Concept: Type 2 diabetes mellitus View this table: [Table14](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T14) #### A.2 Metformin Use Modifier ##### A.2.1 No prior metformin use Entry events having no drug eras of ‘Metformin’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. #### A.3 Escalation Exit Criteria The cohort end date will be based on a continuous exposure to ‘DPP4 inhibitors’: allowing 30 days between exposures, adding 0 days after exposure ends, and using days supply and exposure end date for exposure duration. The person also exists the cohort when encountering any of the following events: 1. drug exposures of ‘All alternative target exposures’. 2. drug exposures of ‘Other anti-diabetics’. 3. drug eras of ‘Insulin’, with era length > 30 days. ##### A.3.1 Concept: All alternative target exposures View this table: [Table15](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T15) #### A.4 Heterogenity Study Inclusion Criteria ##### A.4.1 Lower age group Entry events with the following event criteria: who are < 45 years old. ##### A.4.2 Middle age group Entry events with all of the following criteria: 1. with the following event criteria: who are >= 45 years old. 2. with the following event criteria: who are < 65 years old. ##### A.4.3 Older age group Entry events with the following event criteria: who are >= 65 years old. ##### A.4.4 Female stratum Entry events with the following event criteria: who are female. ##### A.4.5 Male stratum Entry events with the following event criteria: who are male. ##### A.4.6 Race stratum Entry events with the following event criteria: race is: “black or african american”, “black”, “african american”, “african”, “bahamian”, “barbadian”, “dominican”, “dominica islander”, “haitian”, “jamaican”, “tobagoan”, “trinidadian” or “west indian”. ##### A.4.7 Low cardiovascular risk Entry events with all of the following criteria: 1. having no condition occurrences of ‘Conditions indicating established cardiovascular disease’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 2. having no procedure occurrences of ‘Procedures indicating established cardiovascular disease’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.4.8 Higher cardiovascular risk Entry events with any of the following criteria: 1. having at least 1 condition occurrence of ‘Conditions indicating established cardiovascular disease’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 2. having at least 1 procedure occurrence of ‘Procedures indicating established cardiovascular disease’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.4.9 Concept: Conditions indicating established cardiovascular disease View this table: [Table16](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T16) ##### A.4.10 Concept: Procedures indicating established cardiovascular disease View this table: [Table17](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T17) ##### A.4.11 Without renal impairment Entry events having no condition occurrences of ‘Renal impairment’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.4.12 Renal impairment Entry events having at least 1 condition occurrence of ‘Renal impairment’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.4.13 Concept: Renal impairment View this table: [Table18](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T18) #### A.5 Drug-vs-Drug Exposure (Alogliptin New-User) Cohort / OT1 ##### A.5.1 Cohort Entry Events People with continuous observation of 365 days before event may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. drug exposure of ‘alogliptin’ for the first time in the person’s history. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. Restrict entry events to with all of the following criteria: 1. with the following event criteria: who are >= 18 years old. 2. having at least 1 condition occurrence of ‘Type 2 diabetes mellitus’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 3. having no condition occurrences of ‘Type 1 diabetes mellitus’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 4. having no condition occurrences of ‘Secondary diabetes mellitus’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. ##### A.5.2 Additional Inclusion Criteria * No prior with-in class exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘DPP4 inhibitors excluding alogliptin’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior GLP-1 receptor agonist exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘GLP-1 receptor agonists’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior SGLT-2 inhibitor exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘SGLT2 inhibitors’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior SU exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘Sulfonylureas’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * No prior other anti-diabetic exposure Entry events having no drug exposures of ‘Other anti-diabetics’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. * Prior metformin use Entry events with any of the following criteria: 1. having at least 1 drug era of ‘Metformin’, starting anytime up to 90 days before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period; with era length >= 90 days. 2. having at least 3 drug exposures of ‘Metformin’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period. 3. No prior insulin use or combo initiation: Proxy for < 30 days drug era anytime before index and no combination use on index Entry events having no drug eras of ‘Insulin’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date; allow events outside observation period; with era length > 30 days. ##### A.5.3 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be based on a continuous exposure to ‘alogliptin’: allowing 30 days between exposures, adding 0 days after exposure ends, and using days supply and exposure end date for exposure duration. ##### A.5.4 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### A.5.5 Concept: alogliptin View this table: [Table19](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T19) ##### A.5.6 Concept: DPP4 inhibitors excluding alogliptin View this table: [Table20](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T20) ### B Outcome Cohort Definitions #### B.1 3-point MACE ##### B.1.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Acute myocardial Infarction’. 2. condition occurrences of ‘Sudden cardiac death’. 3. condition occurrences of ‘Ischemic stroke’. 4. condition occurrences of ‘Intracranial bleed Hemorrhagic stroke’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.1.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. #### B.1.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.1.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table21](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T21) ##### B.1.5 Concept: Acute myocardial Infarction View this table: [Table22](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T22) ##### B.1.6 Concept: Sudden cardiac death View this table: [Table23](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T23) ##### B.1.7 Concept: Ischemic stroke View this table: [Table24](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T24) ##### B.1.8 Concept: Intracranial bleed Hemorrhagic stroke View this table: [Table25](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T25) ##### B.1.9 Concept: Heart Failure View this table: [Table26](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T26) #### B.2 4-point MACE ##### B.2.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Acute myocardial Infarction’. 2. condition occurrences of ‘Sudden cardiac death’. 3. condition occurrences of ‘Ischemic stroke’. 4. condition occurrences of ‘Iintracranial bleed Hemorrhagic stroke’. 5. condition occurrences of ‘Heart Failure’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.2.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. ##### B.2.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.2.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table27](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T27) ##### B.2.5 Concept: Acute myocardial Infarction View this table: [Table28](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T28) ##### B.2.6 Concept: Sudden cardiac death View this table: [Table29](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T29) ##### B.2.7 Concept: Ischemic stroke View this table: [Table30](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T30) ##### B.2.8 Concept: Iintracranial bleed Hemorrhagic stroke View this table: [Table31](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T31) ##### B.2.9 Concept: Heart Failure View this table: [Table32](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T32) #### B.3 Acute myocardial infarction ##### B.3.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND-T2DM] Acute myocardial Infarction’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.3.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. ##### B.3.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.3.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table33](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T33) ##### B.3.5 Concept: [LEGEND-T2DM] Acute myocardial Infarction View this table: [Table34](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T34) #### B.4 Acute renal failure ##### B.4.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Acute Renal Failure’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.4.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 30 days. ##### B.4.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ##### B.4.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table35](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T35) ##### B.4.5 Concept: Acute Renal Failure View this table: [Table36](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T36) #### B.5 Glycemic control ##### B.5.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. measurements of ‘HbA1c_v2’, numeric value <= 7; unit: “percent”. 2. measurements of ‘HbA1c_v2’, numeric value <= 53; unit: “millimole per mole”. Limit qualifying entry events to the earliest event per person. ##### B.5.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.5.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.5.4 Concept: HbA1c_v2 View this table: [Table37](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T37) #### B.6 Hospitalization with heart failure ##### B.6.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. visit occurrences of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’; having at least 1 condition occurrence of ‘[LEGEND-T2DM] Heart Failure’, starting between 0 days before and all days after ‘Inpatient or ER visit’ start date and starting anytime on or before ‘Inpatient or ER visit’ end date. ##### B.6.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s end date plus 0 days. ##### B.6.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 7 days of each other. ##### B.6.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table38](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T38) ##### B.6.5 Concept: [LEGEND-T2DM] Heart Failure View this table: [Table39](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T39) #### B.7 Measured renal dysfunction ##### B.7.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. measurements of ‘Creatinine measurement’, numeric value > 3; unit: “milligram per deciliter”. 2. measurements of ‘Creatinine measurement’, numeric value > 265; unit: “micromole/liter”. 3. measurements of ‘Creatinine measurement’, numeric value > 0.265; unit: “millimole per liter”. 4. measurements of ‘Creatinine measurement’, numeric value > 3; unit: “milligram”. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. ##### B.7.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.7.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.7.4 Concept: Creatinine measurement View this table: [Table40](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T40) #### B.8 Revascularization ##### B.8.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. procedure occurrences of ‘PCI’. 2. procedure occurrences of ‘CABG’. ##### B.8.2 Additional Inclusion Criteria * Hospitalization Entry events having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Hospitalization’, starting between 0 days before and 0 days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.8.3 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.8.4 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.8.5 Concept: PCI View this table: [Table41](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T41) ##### B.8.6 Concept: Hospitalization View this table: [Table42](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T42) ##### B.8.7 Concept: CABG View this table: [Table43](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T43) #### B.9 Stroke ##### B.9.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND-T2DM] Stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic)’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting between all days before and 1 days after cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.9.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. ##### B.9.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.9.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table44](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T44) ##### B.9.5 Concept: [LEGEND-T2DM] Stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) View this table: [Table45](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T45) #### B.10 Sudden cardiac death ##### B.10.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Sudden cardiac death’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.10.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. ##### B.10.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.10.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table46](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T46) ##### B.10.5 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Sudden cardiac death View this table: [Table47](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T47) #### B.11 Abnormal weight gain ##### B.11.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. observations of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Abnormal weight gain’. ##### B.11.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.11.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.11.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Abnormal weight gain View this table: [Table48](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T48) #### B.12 Abnormal weight loss ##### B.12.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. observations of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Abnormal weight loss’. ##### B.12.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.12.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.12.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Abnormal weight loss View this table: [Table49](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T49) #### B.13 Acute pancreatitis ##### B.13.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Acute pancreatitis’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting anytime on or before cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ##### B.13.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. ##### B.13.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ##### B.13.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table50](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T50) ##### B.13.5 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Acute pancreatitis View this table: [Table51](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T51) #### B.14 All-cause mortality ##### B.14.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. death of any form. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. The person also exists the cohort at the end of continuous observation. ##### B.14.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. #### B.15 Bladder cancer ##### B.15.1 Cohort Entry Events People with continuous observation of 365 days before event enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrence of ‘Bladder cancer’ for the first time in the person’s history. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. ##### B.15.2 Cohort Exit The person also exists the cohort at the end of continuous observation. ##### B.15.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.15.4 Concept: Bladder cancer View this table: [Table52](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T52) #### B.16 Bone fracture ##### B.16.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Bone fracture’. ##### B.16.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.16.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.16.4 Concept: Bone fracture View this table: [Table53](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T53) #### B.17 Breast cancer ##### B.17.1 Cohort Entry Events People with continuous observation of 365 days before event enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrence of ‘Malignant tumor of breast’ for the first time in the person’s history. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. ##### B.17.2 Cohort Exit The person also exists the cohort at the end of continuous observation. ##### B.17.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.17.4 Concept: Malignant tumor of breast View this table: [Table54](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T54) ##### B.18 Diabetic ketoacidosis ###### B.18.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Diabetic ketoacidosis’. Restrict entry events to having at least 1 visit occurrence of ‘Inpatient or ER visit’, starting between all days before and 1 days after cohort entry start date and ending between 0 days before and all days after cohort entry start date. ###### B.18.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 7 days. ###### B.18.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ###### B.18.4 Concept: Inpatient or ER visit View this table: [Table55](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T55) ###### B.18.5 Concept: Diabetic ketoacidosis View this table: [Table56](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T56) ##### B.19 Diarrhea ###### B.19.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN} Diarrhea’. ###### B.19.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ###### B.19.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ###### B.19.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN} Diarrhea View this table: [Table57](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T57) ##### B.20 Genitourinary infection ###### B.20.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘UTI’. Limit qualifying entry events to the earliest event per person. ###### B.20.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ###### B.20.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ###### B.20.4 Concept: UTI View this table: [Table58](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T58) ##### B.21 Hyperkalemia ###### B.21.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Hyperkalemia’. 2. measurements of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Potassium measurement’, numeric value > 5.6; unit: “millimole per liter”. ###### B.21.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ###### B.21.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ###### B.21.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Hyperkalemia View this table: [Table59](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T59) ###### B.21.5 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Potassium measurement View this table: [Table60](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T60) #### B.22 Hypoglycemia ##### B.22.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Hypoglycemia’. ##### B.22.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.22.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ##### B.22.4 Concept: Hypoglycemia View this table: [Table61](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T61) #### B.23 Hypotension ##### B.23.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Hypotension’. ##### B.23.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.23.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.23.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Hypotension View this table: [Table62](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T62) #### B.24 Joint pain ##### B.24.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Joint pain’. ##### B.24.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.24.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.24.4 Concept: Joint pain View this table: [Table63](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T63) #### B.25 Lower extremity amputation ##### B.25.1 Cohort Entry Events People may enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. procedure occurrences of ‘below-knee amputations’. Restrict entry events to having no procedure occurrences of ‘below-knee amputations’, starting in the 30 days prior to cohort entry start date. ##### B.25.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 0 days. ##### B.25.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.25.4 Concept: below-knee amputations View this table: [Table64](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T64) #### B.26 Nausea ##### B.26.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Nausea’. ##### B.26.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.26.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ##### B.26.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Nausea View this table: [Table65](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T65) #### B.27 Peripheral edema ##### B.27.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Edema’. ##### B.27.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.27.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.27.4 Concept: Edema View this table: [Table66](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T66) #### B.28 Photosensitivity ##### B.28.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘Photosensitivity’. ##### B.28.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.28.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 90 days of each other. ##### B.28.4 Concept: Photosensitivity View this table: [Table67](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T67) #### B.29 Renal cancer ##### B.29.1 Cohort Entry Events People with continuous observation of 365 days before event enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrence of ‘Primary malignant neoplasm of kidney’ for the first time in the person’s history. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. ##### B.29.2 Cohort Exit The person also exists the cohort at the end of continuous observation. ##### B.29.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.29.4 Concept: Primary malignant neoplasm of kidney View this table: [Table68](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T68) #### B.30 Thyroid tumor ##### B.30.1 Cohort Entry Events People with continuous observation of 365 days before event enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrence of ‘Neoplasm of thyroid gland’ for the first time in the person’s history. Limit cohort entry events to the earliest event per person. ##### B.30.2 Cohort Exit The person also exists the cohort at the end of continuous observation. ##### B.30.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 0 days of each other. ##### B.30.4 Concept: Neoplasm of thyroid gland View this table: [Table69](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T69) #### B.31 Venous thromboembolism ##### B.31.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis)’. ##### B.31.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.31.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 180 days of each other. ##### B.31.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis) View this table: [Table70](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T70) #### B.32 Vomiting ##### B.32.1 Cohort Entry Events People enter the cohort when observing any of the following: 1. condition occurrences of ‘[LEGEND HTN] Vomiting’. ##### B.32.2 Cohort Exit The cohort end date will be offset from index event’s start date plus 1 day. ##### B.32.3 Cohort Eras Entry events will be combined into cohort eras if they are within 30 days of each other. ##### B.32.4 Concept: [LEGEND HTN] Vomiting View this table: [Table71](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T71) ### C Negative Control Concepts Table 72: Negative outcome controls specified through condition occurrences that map to (a descendent of) the indicated concept ID View this table: [Table72](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.27.21264139.1/T72) ## List of Abbreviations CDM : Common data model DPP4 : Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 GLP1 : Glucagon-like peptide-1 IRB : Institutional review board LEGEND : Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases MACE : Major adverse cardiovascular event MDRR : Minimum detectable risk ratio OHDSI : Observational Health Data Science and Informatics OMOP : Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership PS : Propensity score RCT : Randomized controlled trial SGLT2 : Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 T2DM : Type 2 diabetes mellitus * Received September 27, 2021. * Revision received September 29, 2021. * Accepted September 29, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Lo C, Toyama T, Wang Y et al. Insulin and glucose-lowering agents for treating people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2018. 2. 2.North EJ, Newman JD. Review of cardiovascular outcomes trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Current opinion in cardiology 2019;34:687–92. 3. 3.Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine 2015;373:2117–28. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1504720&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26378978&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 4. 4.Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine 2017;377:644–57. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611925&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 5. 5.Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K et al. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine 2016;375:311–22. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1603827&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27295427&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 6. 6.Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine 2016;375:1834–44. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1607141&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27633186&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 7. 7.Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E et al. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The New England journal of medicine 2013;369:1317–26. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1307684&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23992601&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000325111200009&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR et al. Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine 2013;369:1327–35. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1305889&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23992602&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000325111200010&link_type=ISI) 9. 9.Green JB, Bethel MA, Armstrong PW et al. Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine 2015;373:232–42. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1501352&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26052984&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 10. 10.Rosenstock J, Kahn SE, Johansen OE et al. Effect of linagliptin vs glimepiride on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: The CAROLINA randomized clinical trial. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2019. 11. 11.Cefalu WT, Kaul S, Gerstein HC et al. Cardiovascular outcomes trials in type 2 diabetes: Where do we go from here? Reflections from aDiabetes CareEditors’ expert forum. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:14–31. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo3OiI0MS8xLzE0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTI6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDkvMjkvMjAyMS4wOS4yNy4yMTI2NDEzOS4xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 12. 12.Palmer SC, Tendal B, Mustafa RA et al. Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2021;372:m4573. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzIvamFuMTNfMS9tNDU3MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUyOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjcuMjEyNjQxMzkuMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 13. 13.Qiu M, Ding L-L, Wei X-B et al. Comparative efficacy of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology 2021;77:34–7. 14. 14.Yamada T, Wakabayashi M, Bhalla A, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cardiovascular diabetology 2021;20:14. 15. 15.Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH et al. A GRADE working group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;349:g5630. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDkvc2VwMjRfNS9nNTYzMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUyOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjcuMjEyNjQxMzkuMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 16. 16.Brignardello-Petersen R, Izcovich A, Rochwerg B et al. GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a partially contextualised framework. BMJ 2020;371:m3907. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzEvbm92MTBfNy9tMzkwNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUyOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjcuMjEyNjQxMzkuMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 17. 17.McCoy RG, Dykhoff HJ, Sangaralingham L et al. Adoption of new Glucose-Lowering medications in the U.S.-The case of SGLT2 inhibitors: Nationwide cohort study. Diabetes technology & therapeutics 2019;21:702–12. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 18. 18.Curtis HJ, Dennis JM, Shields BM et al. Time trends and geographical variation in prescribing of drugs for diabetes in england from 1998 to 2017. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 2018;20:2159–68. 19. 19.Arnold SV, Inzucchi SE, Tang F et al. Real-world use and modeled impact of glucoselowering therapies evaluated in recent cardiovascular outcomes trials: An NCDR research to practice project. European journal of preventive cardiology 2017;24:1637–45. 20. 20.Dave CV, Schneeweiss S, Wexler DJ, et al. Trends in clinical characteristics and prescribing preferences for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, 2013-2018. Diabetes care 2020;43:921–4. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI0My80LzkyMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUyOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjcuMjEyNjQxMzkuMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 21. 21.Le P, Chaitoff A, Misra-Hebert AD et al. Use of antihyperglycemic medications in U.S. Adults: An analysis of the national health and nutrition examination survey. Diabetes care 2020;43:1227–33. 22. 22.Suchard MA, Schuemie MJ, Krumholz HM et al. Comprehensive comparative effectiveness and safety of first-line antihypertensive drug classes: A systematic, multinational, large-scale analysis. The Lancet 2019;394:1816–26. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32317-7&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Yoshida K, Solomon DH, Kim SC. Active-comparator design and new-user design in observational studies. Nature reviews Rheumatology 2015;11:437–41. 24. 24.Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ, Gruber S et al. Empirical performance of a new user cohort method: Lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug safety: an international journal of medical toxicology and drug experience 2013;36 Suppl 1:S59–72. 25. 25.Schuemie MJ, Cepeda MS, Suchard MA, et al. How confident are we about observational findings in health care: A benchmark study. Harvard Data Science Review 2020;2. 26. 26.Schneeweiss S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2010;19:858–68. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.1926&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20681003&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000280897800015&link_type=ISI) 27. 27.Gagne JJ, Fireman B, Ryan PB et al. Design considerations in an active medical product safety monitoring system. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2012;21 Suppl 1:32–40. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.2316&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22262591&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 28. 28.Johnson ES, Bartman BA, Briesacher BA et al. The incident user design in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2013;22:1–6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.3334&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23023988&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 29. 29.Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Stürmer T et al. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Medical care 2007;45:S131–42. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.mlr.0000244636.54588.2b&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17909372&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 30. 30.Suissa S, Moodie EEM, Dell’Aniello S. Prevalent new-user cohort designs for comparative drug effect studies by time-conditional propensity scores. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2017;26:459–68. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.4107&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27610604&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 31. 31.Tian Y, Schuemie MJ, Suchard MA. Evaluating large-scale propensity score performance through real-world and synthetic data experiments. International journal of epidemiology 2018;47:2005–14. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 32. 32.Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, DuMouchel W et al. Interpreting observational studies: Why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values. Statistics in Medicine 2014;33:209–18. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.5925&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23900808&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 33. 33.Schuemie MJ, Hripcsak G, Ryan PB et al. Robust empirical calibration of p -values using observational data. Statistics in Medicine. 2016;35:3883–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.6977&link_type=DOI) 34. 34.Schuemie MJ, Hripcsak G, Ryan PB et al. Empirical confidence interval calibration for population-level effect estimation studies in observational healthcare data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2018;115:2571–7. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTE1LzExLzI1NzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MjoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wOS8yOS8yMDIxLjA5LjI3LjIxMjY0MTM5LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 35. 35.Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, Hripcsak G et al. Improving reproducibility by using highthroughput observational studies with empirical calibration. Philosophical transactions Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 2018;376. 36. 36.Graham DJ, Ouellet-Hellstrom R, MaCurdy TE et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and death in elderly medicare patients treated with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2010;304:411–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2010.920&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20584880&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000280350100024&link_type=ISI) 37. 37.Turner RM, Kwok CS, Chen-Turner C et al. Thiazolidinediones and associated risk of bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of clinical pharmacology 2014;78:258–73. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/bcp.12306&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24325197&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 38. 38.Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. American Journal of Epidemiology 2016;183:758–64. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwv254&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26994063&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 39. 39.Hernán, Miguel. Antihyperglycemic therapy and cardiovascular risk: Design and emulation of a target trial using healthcare databases. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute 2019. 40. 40.American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. *Diabetes care* 2018;41:S73–85. 41. 41.Nathan DM, Buse JB, Kahn SE et al. Rationale and design of the glycemia reduction approaches in diabetes: A comparative effectiveness study (GRADE). Diabetes care 2013;36:2254–61. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIzNi84LzIyNTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MjoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wOS8yOS8yMDIxLjA5LjI3LjIxMjY0MTM5LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 42. 42.Association AD, American Diabetes Association. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:S98–S110. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxOToiNDMvU3VwcGxlbWVudF8xL1M5OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUyOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjcuMjEyNjQxMzkuMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 43. 43.Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, Pratt N et al. Large-Scale evidence generation and evaluation across a network of databases (LEGEND): Assessing validity using hypertension as a case study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association;ocaa124. 44. 44.Ryan PB, Buse JB, Schuemie MJ et al. Comparative effectiveness of canagliflozin, SGLT2 inhibitors and non-SGLT2 inhibitors on the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and amputation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A real-world meta-analysis of 4 observational databases (OBSERVE-4D). Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 2018;20:2585– 2597. doi: 10.1111/dom.13424. Epub 2018 Jun 25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/dom.13424&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29938883&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 45. 45.You SC, Rho Y, Bikdeli B et al. Association of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel with net adverse clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in clinical practice. Journal of the American Medical Association; in press. 46. 46.Wang Y, Desai M, Ryan PB et al. Incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with SGLT2 inhibitors and other antihyperglycemic agents. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2017;128:83–90. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.diabres.2017.04.004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28448895&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 47. 47.Weinstein RB, Ryan PB, Berlin JA et al. Channeling bias in the analysis of risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, and acute renal failure with the use of paracetamol compared with ibuprofen. Drug safety: an international journal of medical toxicology and drug experience 2020. 48. 48.Yuan Z, DeFalco FJ, Ryan PB et al. Risk of lower extremity amputations in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the USA: A retrospective cohort study. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 2018;20:582–9. 49. 49.Ammann EM, Schweizer ML, Robinson JG et al. Chart validation of inpatient ICD-9-CM administrative diagnosis codes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among intravenous immune globulin (IGIV) users in the sentinel distributed database. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2018;27:398–404. doi: 10.1002/pds.4398. Epub 2018 Feb 15. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.4398&link_type=DOI) 50. 50.Floyd JS, Blondon M, Moore KP et al. Validation of methods for assessing cardiovascular disease using electronic health data in a cohort of veterans with diabetes. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2016;25:467–71. doi: 10.1002/pds.3921. Epub 2015 Nov 11. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.3921&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26555025&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 51. 51.Rubbo B, Fitzpatrick NK, Denaxas S et al. Use of electronic health records to ascertain, validate and phenotype acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and recommendations. International journal of cardiology 2015;187:705-11.:doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.075. Epub 2015 Mar 5. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.075&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25966015&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 52. 52.Singh S, Fouayzi H, Anzuoni K et al. Diagnostic algorithms for cardiovascular death in administrative claims databases: A systematic review. Drug safety: an international journal of medical toxicology and drug experience 2018;23:018–0754. 53. 53.Wahl PM, Rodgers K, Schneeweiss S et al. Validation of claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal serious adverse events in a commercially-insured population. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2010;19:596–603. doi: 10.1002/pds.1924. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.1924&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20140892&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 54. 54.Normand SL, Morris CN, Fung KS et al. Development and validation of a claims based index for adjusting for risk of mortality: The case of acute myocardial infarction. Journal of clinical epidemiology 1995;48:229–43. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0895-4356(94)00126-B&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7869069&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995QL24500007&link_type=ISI) 55. 55.Andrade SE, Harrold LR, Tjia J et al. A systematic review of validated methods for identifying cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack using administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2012;21:100–28. doi: 10.1002/pds.2312. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.2312&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22262598&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 56. 56.Park TH, Choi JC. Validation of stroke and thrombolytic therapy in korean national health insurance claim data. Journal of clinical neurology 2016;12:42–8. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2016.12.1.42. Epub 2015 Sep 11. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3988/jcn.2016.12.1.42&link_type=DOI) 57. 57.Gon Y, Kabata D, Yamamoto K et al. Validation of an algorithm that determines stroke diagnostic code accuracy in a japanese hospital-based cancer registry using electronic medical records. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2017;17:157. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0554-x. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12911-017-0554-x&link_type=DOI) 58. 58.Sung SF, Hsieh CY, Lin HJ et al. Validation of algorithms to identify stroke risk factors in patients with acute ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or intracerebral hemorrhage in an administrative claims database. International journal of cardiology 2016;215:277-82.:doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.069. Epub 2016 Apr 14. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.069&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 59. 59.Tu K, Wang M, Young J et al. Validity of administrative data for identifying patients who have had a stroke or transient ischemic attack using EMRALD as a reference standard. The Canadian journal of cardiology 2013;29:1388–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2013.07.676. Epub 2013 Sep 26. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cjca.2013.07.676&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24075778&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 60. 60.Yuan Z, Voss EA, DeFalco FJ et al. Risk prediction for ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack in patients without atrial fibrillation: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases: the official journal of National Stroke Association 2017;26:1721–1731. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.03.036. Epub 2017 Apr 6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.03.036&link_type=DOI) 61. 61.Hennessy S, Leonard CE, Freeman CP et al. Validation of diagnostic codes for outpatient-originating sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmia in medicaid and medicare claims data. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2010;19:555–62. doi: 10.1002/pds.1869. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.1869&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19844945&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000279387300002&link_type=ISI) 62. 62.Kaspar M, Fette G, Guder G et al. Underestimated prevalence of heart failure in hospital inpatients: A comparison of ICD codes and discharge letter information. Clinical research in cardiology: official journal of the German Cardiac Society 2018;107:778–787. doi: 10.1007/s00392-018-1245-z.Epub 2018 Apr 17. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00392-018-1245-z&link_type=DOI) 63. 63.Feder SL, Redeker NS, Jeon S et al. Validation of the ICD-9 diagnostic code for palliative care in patients hospitalized with heart failure within the veterans health administration. The American journal of hospice & palliative care 2018;35:959–965. doi: 10.1177/1049909117747519. Epub 2017 Dec 18. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1049909117747519&link_type=DOI) 64. 64.Rosenman M, He J, Martin J et al. Database queries for hospitalizations for acute congestive heart failure: Flexible methods and validation based on set theory. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2014;21:345–52. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001942.Epub 2013 Oct 10. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001942&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24113802&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 65. 65.Voors AA, Ouwerkerk W, Zannad F et al. Development and validation of multivariable models to predict mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure. European journal of heart failure 2017;19:627–634. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.785. Epub 2017 Mar 1. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ejhf.785&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 66. 66.Floyd JS, Wellman R, Fuller S et al. Use of electronic health data to estimate heart failure events in a Population-Based cohort with CKD. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN 2016;11:1954–1961. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03900416. Epub 2016 Aug 9. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmphc24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjExLzExLzE5NTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MjoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wOS8yOS8yMDIxLjA5LjI3LjIxMjY0MTM5LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 67. 67.Gini R, Schuemie MJ, Mazzaglia G et al. Automatic identification of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure and their levels of severity from italian general practitioners’ electronic medical records: A validation study. BMJ open 2016;6:e012413. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012413. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiNi8xMi9lMDEyNDEzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTI6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDkvMjkvMjAyMS4wOS4yNy4yMTI2NDEzOS4xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 68. 68.Afzal Z, Schuemie MJ, Blijderveen JC van et al. Improving sensitivity of machine learning methods for automated case identification from free-text electronic medical records. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2013;13:30.:doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-30. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1472-6947-13-30&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23452306&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 69. 69.Lenihan CR, Montez-Rath ME, Mora Mangano CT et al. Trends in acute kidney injury, associated use of dialysis, and mortality after cardiac surgery, 1999 to 2008. *The Annals of thoracic surgery* 2013;95:20–8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.131. Epub 2012 Dec 25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.131&link_type=DOI) 70. 70.Winkelmayer WC, Schneeweiss S, Mogun H et al. Identification of individuals with CKD from medicare claims data: A validation study. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation 2005;46:225–32. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.04.029. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.04.029&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16112040&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230926100005&link_type=ISI) 71. 71.Grams ME, Waikar SS, MacMahon B et al. Performance and limitations of administrative data in the identification of AKI. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN 2014;9:682–9. doi: 10.2215/CJN.07650713. Epub 2014 Jan 23. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmphc24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiOS80LzY4MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUyOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjcuMjEyNjQxMzkuMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 72. 72.Arnold J, Ng KP, Sims D et al. Incidence and impact on outcomes of acute kidney injury after a stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC nephrology 2018;19:283. doi: 10.1186/s12882-018-1085-0. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12882-018-1085-0&link_type=DOI) 73. 73.Sutherland SM, Byrnes JJ, Kothari M et al. AKI in hospitalized children: Comparing the pRIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO definitions. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN 2015;10:554–61. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01900214. Epub 2015 Feb 3. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmphc24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMTAvNC81NTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MjoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wOS8yOS8yMDIxLjA5LjI3LjIxMjY0MTM5LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 74. 74.Waikar SS, Wald R, Chertow GM et al. Validity of international classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification codes for acute renal failure. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN 2006;17:1688–94. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006010073. Epub 2006 Apr 26. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiam5lcGhyb2wiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTcvNi8xNjg4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTI6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDkvMjkvMjAyMS4wOS4yNy4yMTI2NDEzOS4xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 75. 75.Rhee C, Murphy MV, Li L et al. Improving documentation and coding for acute organ dysfunction biases estimates of changing sepsis severity and burden: A retrospective study. Critical care / the Society of Critical Care Medicine 2015;19:338.:doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1048-9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13054-015-1048-9&link_type=DOI) 76. 76.Vashisht R, Jung K, Schuler A, et al. Association of hemoglobin a1c levels with use of sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin: Analysis from the observational health data sciences and informatics initiative. JAMA network open 2018;1:e181755–5. 77. 77.Broder MS, Chang E, Cherepanov D et al. Identification of potential markers for cushing disease. Endocrine practice: official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016;22:567–74. doi: 10.4158/EP15914.OR. Epub 2016 Jan 20. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4158/EP15914.OR&link_type=DOI) 78. 78.Williams BA. The clinical epidemiology of fatigue in newly diagnosed heart failure. BMC cardiovascular disorders 2017;17:122. doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0555-9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12872-017-0555-9&link_type=DOI) 79. 79.Yabe D, Kuwata H, Kaneko M et al. Use of the japanese health insurance claims database to assess the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with diabetes: Comparison of DPP-4 inhibitors with other oral antidiabetic drugs. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 2015;17:430–4. doi: 10.1111/dom.12381. Epub 2014 Sep 17. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/dom.12381&link_type=DOI) 80. 80.Dore DD, Hussein M, Hoffman C et al. A pooled analysis of exenatide use and risk of acute pancreatitis. Current medical research and opinion 2013;29:1577–86. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.838550. Epub 2013 Sep 13. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1185/03007995.2013.838550&link_type=DOI) 81. 81.Dore DD, Chaudhry S, Hoffman C et al. Stratum-specific positive predictive values of claims for acute pancreatitis among commercial health insurance plan enrollees with diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2011;20:209–13. doi: 10.1002/pds.2077. Epub 2010 Dec 23. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.2077&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21254293&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 82. 82.Chen HJ, Wang JJ, Tsay WI et al. Epidemiology and outcome of acute pancreatitis in end-stage renal disease dialysis patients: A 10-year national cohort study. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association 2017;32:1731–1736. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfw400. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ndt/gfw400&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28088773&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 83. 83.Ooba N, Setoguchi S, Ando T et al. Claims-based definition of death in japanese claims database: Validity and implications. PLoS One 2013;8:e66116. doi: 10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0066116. Print 2013. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0066116&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23741526&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 84. 84.Robinson TE, Elley CR, Kenealy T et al. Development and validation of a predictive risk model for all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2015;108:482–8. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2015.02.015. Epub 2015 Mar 16. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.diabres.2015.02.015&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 85. 85.Wang L, Voss EA, Weaver J, et al. Diabetic ketoacidosis in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors versus other antihyperglycemic agents: An observational study of four us administrative claims databases. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2019;28:1620–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.4887&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31456304&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 86. 86.Buono JL, Mathur K, Averitt AJ et al. Economic burden of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea: Retrospective analysis of a U.S. Commercially insured population. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2017;23:453–460. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2016.16138. Epub 2016 Nov 21. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18553/jmcp.2016.16138&link_type=DOI) 87. 87.Krishnarajah G, Duh MS, Korves C et al. Public health impact of complete and in-complete rotavirus vaccination among commercially and medicaid insured children in the united states. PloS one 2016;11:e0145977. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145977. eCollection 2016. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0145977&link_type=DOI) 88. 88.Panozzo CA, Becker-Dreps S, Pate V et al. Direct, indirect, total, and overall effectiveness of the rotavirus vaccines for the prevention of gastroenteritis hospitalizations in privately insured US children, 2007-2010. American Journal of Epidemiology 2014;179:895–909. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu001. Epub 2014 Feb 26. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwu001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24578359&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000333247200011&link_type=ISI) 89. 89.Nichols GA, Brodovicz KG, Kimes TM et al. Prevalence and incidence of urinary tract and genital infections among patients with and without type 2 diabetes. Journal of diabetes and its complications 2017;31:1587–91. 90. 90.Abbas S, Ihle P, Harder S et al. Risk of hyperkalemia and combined use of spirono-lactone and long-term ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker therapy in heart failure using real-life data: A population- and insurance-based cohort. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2015;24:406–13. doi: 10.1002/pds.3748. Epub 2015 Feb 12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.3748&link_type=DOI) 91. 91.Betts KA, Woolley JM, Mu F et al. The prevalence of hyperkalemia in the united states. Curr Med Res Opin 2018;34:971–978. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1433141. Epub 2018 Feb 21. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/03007995.2018.1433141&link_type=DOI) 92. 92.Fitch K, Woolley JM, Engel T et al. The clinical and economic burden of hyperkalemia on medicare and commercial payers. Am Health Drug Benefits 2017;10:202–210. 93. 93.Leonard CE, Han X, Brensinger CM et al. Comparative risk of serious hypoglycemia with oral antidiabetic monotherapy: A retrospective cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2018;27:9–18. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.4337&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29108130&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 94. 94.Chrischilles E, Rubenstein L, Chao J et al. Initiation of nonselective alpha1-antagonist therapy and occurrence of hypotension-related adverse events among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: A retrospective cohort study. Clinical therapeutics 2001;23:727–43. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0149-2918(01)80022-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11394731&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000168783700006&link_type=ISI) 95. 95.Goldstein JL, Zhao SZ, Burke TA et al. Incidence of outpatient physician claims for upper gastrointestinal symptoms among new users of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen in an insured population in the united states. The American journal of gastroenterology 2003;98:2627–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08722.x. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08722.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14687808&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 96. 96.Donga PZ, Bilir SP, Little G et al. Comparative treatment-related adverse event cost burden in immune thrombocytopenic purpura. Journal of medical economics 2017;20:1200–1206. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1370425. Epub 2017 Sep 8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13696998.2017.1370425&link_type=DOI) 97. 97.Marrett E, Kwong WJ, Frech F et al. Health care utilization and costs associated with nausea and vomiting in patients receiving oral Immediate-Release opioids for outpatient acute pain management. Pain Ther 2016;5:215–226. doi: 10.1007/s40122-016-0057y.Epub 2016 Oct 4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40122-016-0057y&link_type=DOI) 98. 98.Tamariz L, Harkins T, Nair V. A systematic review of validated methods for identifying venous thromboembolism using administrative and claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21:154–62. doi: 10.1002/pds.2341. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pds.2341&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22262602&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 99. 99.Burwen DR, Wu C, Cirillo D et al. Venous thromboembolism incidence, recurrence, and mortality based on women’s health initiative data and medicare claims. Thromb Res 2017;150:78-85.:doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2016.11.015. Epub 2016 Nov 15. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.thromres.2016.11.015&link_type=DOI) 100.100.Coleman CI, Peacock WF, Fermann GJ et al. External validation of a multivariable claims-based rule for predicting in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-pulmonary embolism complications. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:610. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1855-y. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-016-1855-y&link_type=DOI) 101.101.Ammann EM, Cuker A, Carnahan RM et al. Chart validation of inpatient international classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM) administrative diagnosis codes for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among intravenous immune globulin (IGIV) users in the sentinel distributed database. Medicine 2018;97:e9960. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009960. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MD.0000000000009960&link_type=DOI) 102.102.Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41–55. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/biomet/70.1.41&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1983QH66900005&link_type=ISI) 103.103.Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ et al. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology 2009;20:512. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a663cc&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19487948&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267065500007&link_type=ISI) 104.104.Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clinical trials 2012;9:48–55. 105.105.Murray EJ, Caniglia EC, Swanson SA et al. Patients and investigators prefer measures of absolute risk in subgroups for pragmatic randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018;103:10–21. 106.106.Hernán MA, Robins JM. Per-Protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. The New England journal of medicine 2017;377:1391–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=doi:10.1056/NEJMsm1605385&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28976864&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 107.107.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials 1986;7:177–88. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3802833&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986F013900001&link_type=ISI) 108.108.Gronsbell J, Hong C, Nie L et al. Exact inference for the random-effect model for meta-analyses with rare events. Statistics in Medicine 2020;39:252–64. 109.109.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 2009;172:137–59. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19381330&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261962600009&link_type=ISI) 110.110.Schuemie MJ, Chen Y, Madigan D et al. Combining cox regressions across a heterogeneous distributed research network facing small and zero counts. 2021.[http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.01551](http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.01551) 111.111.Varin C, Reid N, Firth D. An overview of composite likelihood methods. Statistica Sinica 2011. 112.112.Voss EA, Boyce RD, Ryan PB et al. Accuracy of an automated knowledge base for identifying drug adverse reactions. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2017;66:72–81. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) 113.113.Dukes O, Martinussen T, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ et al. On doubly robust estimation of the hazard difference. Biometrics 2019;75:100–9. 114.114.Funk MJ, Westreich D, Wiesen C et al. Doubly robust estimation of causal effects. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011;173:761–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwq439&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21385832&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000289301200007&link_type=ISI) 115.115.Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Gerster M et al. Estimation of direct effects for survival data by using the aalen additive hazards model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology*)* 2011;73:773–88. 116.116.Aalen OO. A linear regression model for the analysis of life times. Statistics in Medicine 1989;8:907–25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.4780080803&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2678347&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1989AL67500002&link_type=ISI) 117.117.Wang Y, Lee M, Liu P et al. Doubly robust additive hazards models to estimate effects of a continuous exposure on survival. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 2017;28:771. 118.118.Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine 2009;28:3083–107. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.3697&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19757444&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000271409300008&link_type=ISI) 119.119.Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, Pratt N et al. Large-Scale evidence generation and evaluation across a network of databases (LEGEND): Principles and methods. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association;ocaa103. 120.120.Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: A tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology 2010;21:383–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61eeb&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20335814&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.27.21264139.1.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000277071500016&link_type=ISI) 121.121.Hripcsak G, Suchard MA, Shea S et al. Comparison of cardiovascular and safety outcomes of chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide to treat hypertension. JAMA internal medicine 2020. 122.122.Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, Man KKC et al. A plea to stop using the case-control design in retrospective database studies. Statistics in Medicine 2019;38:4199–208. 123.123.Woelfle M, Olliaro P, Todd MH. Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry 2011;3:745–8. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif