A method for comparing multiple imputation techniques: A case study on the U.S. national COVID cohort collaborative.

Healthcare datasets obtained from Electronic Health Records have proven to be extremely useful for assessing associations between patients' predictors and outcomes of interest. However, these datasets often suffer from missing values in a high proportion of cases, whose removal may introduce severe bias. Several multiple imputation algorithms have been proposed to attempt to recover the missing information under an assumed missingness mechanism. Each algorithm presents strengths and weaknesses, and there is currently no consensus on which multiple imputation algorithm works best in a given scenario. Furthermore, the selection of each algorithm's parameters and data-related modeling choices are also both crucial and challenging. In this paper we propose a novel framework to numerically evaluate strategies for handling missing data in the context of statistical analysis, with a particular focus on multiple imputation techniques. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach on a large cohort of type-2 diabetes patients provided by the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Enclave, where we explored the influence of various patient characteristics on outcomes related to COVID-19. Our analysis included classic multiple imputation techniques as well as simple complete-case Inverse Probability Weighted models. Extensive experiments show that our approach can effectively highlight the most promising and performant missing-data handling strategy for our case study. Moreover, our methodology allowed a better understanding of the behavior of the different models and of how it changed as we modified their parameters. Our method is general and can be applied to different research fields and on datasets containing heterogeneous types.

Generalisable long COVID subtypes: findings from the NIH N3C and RECOVER programmes.

BACKGROUND: Stratification of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, or long COVID) would allow precision clinical management strategies. However, long COVID is incompletely understood and characterised by a wide range of manifestations that are difficult to analyse computationally. Additionally, the generalisability of machine learning classification of COVID-19 clinical outcomes has rarely been tested. METHODS: We present a method for computationally modelling PASC phenotype data based on electronic healthcare records (EHRs) and for assessing pairwise phenotypic similarity between patients using semantic similarity. Our approach defines a nonlinear similarity function that maps from a feature space of phenotypic abnormalities to a matrix of pairwise patient similarity that can be clustered using unsupervised machine learning. FINDINGS: We found six clusters of PASC patients, each with distinct profiles of phenotypic abnormalities, including clusters with distinct pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, and cardiovascular abnormalities, and a cluster associated with broad, severe manifestations and increased mortality. There was significant association of cluster membership with a range of pre-existing conditions and measures of severity during acute COVID-19. We assigned new patients from other healthcare centres to clusters by maximum semantic similarity to the original patients, and showed that the clusters were generalisable across different hospital systems. The increased mortality rate originally identified in one cluster was consistently observed in patients assigned to that cluster in other hospital systems. INTERPRETATION: Semantic phenotypic clustering provides a foundation for assigning patients to stratified subgroups for natural history or therapy studies on PASC. FUNDING: NIH (TR002306/OT2HL161847-01/OD011883/HG010860), U.S.D.O.E. (DE-AC02-05CH11231), Donald A. Roux Family Fund at Jackson Laboratory, Marsico Family at CU Anschutz.

Metformin is associated with reduced COVID-19 severity in patients with prediabetes.

AIMS: Studies suggest that metformin is associated with reduced COVID-19 severity in individuals with diabetes compared to other antihyperglycemics. We assessed if metformin is associated with reduced incidence of severe COVID-19 for patients with prediabetes or polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), common diseases that increase the risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: This observational, retrospective study utilized EHR data from 52 hospitals for COVID-19 patients with PCOS or prediabetes treated with metformin or levothyroxine/ondansetron (controls). After balancing via inverse probability score weighting, associations with COVID-19 severity were assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: In the prediabetes cohort, when compared to levothyroxine, metformin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19 with "mild-ED" or worse (OR [95% CI]: 0.636, [0.455-0.888]) and "moderate" or worse severity (0.493 [0.339-0.718]). Compared to ondansetron, metformin was associated with lower incidence of "mild-ED" or worse severity (0.039 [0.026-0.057]), "moderate" or worse (0.045 [0.03-0.069]), "severe" or worse (0.183 [0.077-0.431]), and "mortality/hospice" (0.223 [0.071-0.694]). For PCOS, metformin showed no significant differences in severity compared to levothyroxine, but was associated with a significantly lower incidence of "mild-ED" or worse (0.101 [0.061-0.166]), and "moderate" or worse (0.094 [0.049-0.18]) COVID-19 outcome compared to ondansetron. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin use is associated with less severe COVID-19 in patients with prediabetes or PCOS.

NSAID use and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a 38-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to reduce pain, fever, and inflammation but have been associated with complications in community-acquired pneumonia. Observations shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 suggested that ibuprofen was associated with an increased risk of adverse events in COVID-19 patients, but subsequent observational studies failed to demonstrate increased risk and in one case showed reduced risk associated with NSAID use. METHODS: A 38-center retrospective cohort study was performed that leveraged the harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record data of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. A propensity-matched cohort of 19,746 COVID-19 inpatients was constructed by matching cases (treated with NSAIDs at the time of admission) and 19,746 controls (not treated) from 857,061 patients with COVID-19 available for analysis. The primary outcome of interest was COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, which was classified as: moderate, severe, or mortality/hospice. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), invasive ventilation, and all-cause mortality at any time following COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: Logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased COVID-19 severity (OR: 0.57 95% CI: 0.53-0.61). Analysis of secondary outcomes using logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.51 95% CI: 0.47-0.56), invasive ventilation (OR: 0.59 95% CI: 0.55-0.64), AKI (OR: 0.67 95% CI: 0.63-0.72), or ECMO (OR: 0.51 95% CI: 0.36-0.7). In contrast, the odds ratios indicate reduced risk of these outcomes, but our quantitative bias analysis showed E-values of between 1.9 and 3.3 for these associations, indicating that comparatively weak or moderate confounder associations could explain away the observed associations. CONCLUSIONS: Study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Recording of NSAID use may have been incomplete. Our study demonstrates that NSAID use is not associated with increased COVID-19 severity, all-cause mortality, invasive ventilation, AKI, or ECMO in COVID-19 inpatients. A conservative interpretation in light of the quantitative bias analysis is that there is no evidence that NSAID use is associated with risk of increased severity or the other measured outcomes. Our results confirm and extend analogous findings in previous observational studies using a large cohort of patients drawn from 38 centers in a nationally representative multicenter database.

Brief report: International perspectives on the pediatric COVID-19 experience.

The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is endangering human health worldwide; scarcity of published pediatric cases and current literature and the absence of evidence-based guidelines necessitate international sharing of experience and personal communication. On 31 March 2020 the International Committee of the American Thoracic Society Pediatrics Assembly recorded an online podcast, during which pediatric pulmonologists worldwide shared their experience on the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in children. The aim was to share personal experience in organizing pediatric care in different health care settings globally, protecting health care workers, and isolation practices. This manuscript summarizes the common themes of the podcast which centered around three main topics: more benign clinical disease and progression in pediatric cases compared to adults, a strong need for strategies to protect health care workers, and social or economic disparities as a barrier to successful pandemic control.