Safety of Monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) COVID-19 Vaccines in US Children Aged 6 months to 17 years (preprint)

Importance Active monitoring of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination provides early detection of rare outcomes that may not be identified in prelicensure trials. Objective To conduct near-real-time monitoring of health outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination in the United States (US) pediatric population aged 6 months to 17 years. Design We evaluated 21 pre-specified health outcomes; 15 were sequentially tested through near-real-time surveillance, and 6 were monitored descriptively within a cohort of vaccinated children. We tested for increased rate of each outcome following vaccination compared to a historical comparator cohort. Setting This population-based study was conducted under the US Food and Drug Administration public health surveillance mandate using three commercial claims databases. Participants Children aged 6 months to 17 years were included if they received a monovalent COVID-19 vaccine dose before early 2023 and had continuous enrollment in a medical health insurance plan from the start of an outcome-specific clean window to the COVID-19 vaccination dose. Exposure Exposure was defined as receipt of a monovalent BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 vaccine dose. The primary analysis evaluated dose 1 and dose 2 combined, and secondary analyses evaluated each dose separately. Follow-up time was censored at death, disenrollment, end of risk window, end of study period, or a subsequent dose administration. Main Outcomes Twenty-one prespecified health outcomes. Results The study included 4,102,016 enrollees aged 6 months to17 years. Thirteen of 15 outcomes sequentially tested did not meet the threshold for a statistical signal. In the primary analysis, myocarditis or pericarditis signals were detected following BNT162b2 vaccine in children aged 12-17 years old and seizures/convulsions signals were detected following vaccination with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 in children aged 2-4/5 years. However, in a post-hoc sensitivity analysis, the seizures/convulsions signal was sensitive to background rates selection and was not observed when 2022 background rates were selected instead of 2020 rates. Conclusions and Relevance Of the two signaled outcomes, the myocarditis or pericarditis signals are consistent with previously published reports. The new signal detected for seizures/convulsions among younger children should be further investigated in a robust epidemiological study with better confounding adjustment.

Results of safety monitoring of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in U.S. children aged 5-17 years (preprint)

Importance: Active monitoring of health outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination offers early detection of rare outcomes that may not be identified in pre-licensure trials. Objective: To conduct near-real time monitoring of health outcomes following BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. pediatric population aged 5-17 years. Design: We conducted rapid cycle analysis of 20 pre-specified health outcomes, 13 of which underwent sequential testing and 7 of which were monitored descriptively within a cohort of vaccinated individuals. We tested for increased risk of each health outcome following vaccination compared to a historical baseline, while adjusting for repeated looks at the data as well as claims processing delay. Setting: This is a population-based study in three large commercial claims databases conducted under the U.S. FDA public health surveillance mandate. Participants: The study included over 3 million enrollees aged 5-17 years with BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination through mid-2022 in three commercial claims databases. We required continuous enrollment in a medical health insurance plan from the start of an outcome-specific clean window to the COVID-19 vaccination. Exposure: Exposure was defined as receipt of a BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine dose. The primary analysis assessed primary series doses together (Dose 1 + Dose 2), and dose-specific secondary analyses were conducted. Follow up time was censored for death, disenrollment, end of risk window, end of study period, or a subsequent vaccine dose. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): We monitored 20 pre-specified health outcomes. We performed descriptive monitoring for all outcomes and sequential testing for 13 outcomes. Results: Among 13 health outcomes evaluated by sequential testing, 12 did not meet the threshold for a statistical signal in any of the three databases. In our primary analysis, myocarditis/pericarditis signaled following primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 in ages 12-17 years across all three databases. Conclusions and Relevance: Consistent with published literature, our near-real time monitoring identified a signal for only myocarditis/pericarditis following BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 12-17 years. This method is intended for early detection of safety signals. Our results are reassuring of the safety of the vaccine, and the potential benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Background rates of five thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndromes of special interest for COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance: incidence between 2017 and 2019 and patient profiles from 25.4 million people in six European countries (preprint)

Background Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been reported among individuals vaccinated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines. In this study we describe the background incidence of TTS in 6 European countries. Methods Electronic medical records from France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom informed the study. Incidence rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and stroke, all with concurrent thrombocytopenia, were estimated among the general population between 2017 to 2019. A range of additional adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccinations were also studied in a similar manner. Findings A total of 25,432,658 individuals were included. Background rates ranged from 1.0 (0.7 to 1.4) to 8.5 (7.4 to 9.9) per 100,000 person-years for DVT with thrombocytopenia, from 0.5 (0.3 to 0.6) to 20.8 (18.9 to 22.8) for PE with thrombocytopenia, from 0.1 (0.0 to 0.1) to 2.5 (2.2 to 2.7) for SVT with thrombocytopenia, and from 0.2 (0.0 to 0.4) to 30.9 (28.6 to 33.3) for stroke with thrombocytopenia. CVST with thrombocytopenia was only identified in one database, with incidence rate of 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2) per 100,000 person-years. The incidence of TTS increased with age, with those affected typically having more comorbidities and greater medication use than the general population. TTS was also more often seen in men than women. A sizeable proportion of those affected were seen to have been taking antithrombotic and anticoagulant therapies prior to their TTS event. Interpretation Although rates vary across databases, TTS has consistently been seen to be a very rare event among the general population. While still very rare, rates of TTS are typically higher among older individuals, and those affected were also seen to generally be male and have more comorbidities and greater medication use than the general population. Funding This study was funded by the European Medicines Agency (EMA/2017/09/PE Lot 3).

Alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostate hyperplasia patients : an international cohort study (preprint)

Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storms release. We conducted a prevalent-user active-comparator cohort study to assess association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes: diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services. Our study included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH therapy during the period between November 2019 and January 2020, found in electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We found no differential risk for any of COVID-19 outcome, pointing to the need for further research on potential COVID-19 therapies.

Unraveling COVID-19: a large-scale characterization of 4.5 million COVID-19 cases using CHARYBDIS (preprint)

Background: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response [1,2]. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) [3] Characterizing Health Associated Risks, and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD.Methods: We conducted a descriptive cohort study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub [4]. Findings: We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts, and are available in an interactive website: https://data.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationCharybdis/. Interpretation: CHARYBDIS findings provide benchmarks that contribute to our understanding of COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. This can enable timely assessment of real-world outcomes of preventative and therapeutic options as they are introduced in clinical practice.

Use of dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation among 240,392 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States (preprint)

Objective To estimate the proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who undergo dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Design A network cohort study. Setting Six databases from the United States containing routinely-collected patient data: HealthVerity, Premier, IQVIA Open Claims, Optum EHR, Optum SES, and VA-OMOP. Patients Patients hospitalized with a clinical diagnosis or a positive test result for COVID-19. Interventions Dialysis, tracheostomy, and ECMO. Measurements and Main Results 240,392 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were included (22,887 from HealthVerity, 139,971 from IQVIA Open Claims, 29,061 from Optum EHR, 4,336 from OPTUM SES, 36,019 from Premier, and 8,118 from VA-OMOP). Across the six databases, 9,703 (4.04% [95% CI: 3.96% to 4.11%]) patients received dialysis, 1,681 (0.70% [0.67% to 0.73%]) had a tracheostomy, and 398 (0.17% [95% CI: 0.15% to 0.18%]) patients underwent ECMO over the 30 days following hospitalization. Use of ECMO was generally concentrated among patients who were younger, male, and with fewer comorbidities except for obesity. Tracheostomy was used for a similar proportion of patients regardless of age, sex, or comorbidity. While dialysis was used for a similar proportion among younger and older patients, it was more frequent among male patients and among those with chronic kidney disease. Conclusion Use of dialysis among those hospitalized with COVID-19 is high at around 4%. Although less than one percent of patients undergo tracheostomy and ECMO, the absolute numbers of patients who have undergone these interventions is substantial and can be expected to continue grow given the continuing spread of the COVID-19.

Characteristics, outcomes, and mortality amongst 133,589 patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases diagnosed with, and 48,418 hospitalised for COVID-19: a multinational distributed network cohort analysis (preprint)

Objective: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. Design: Multinational network cohort study Setting: Electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (NYC, United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea). Participants: All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included. Main outcome measures: 30-day complications during hospitalisation and death Results: We studied 133,589 patients diagnosed and 48,418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. The majority of participants were female (60.5% to 65.9%) and aged [≥]50 years. The most prevalent autoimmune conditions were psoriasis (3.5 to 32.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (3.9 to 18.9%), and vasculitis (3.3 to 17.6%). Amongst hospitalised patients, Type 1 diabetes was the most common autoimmune condition (4.8% to 7.5%) in US databases, rheumatoid arthritis in HIRA (18.9%), and psoriasis in SIDIAP-H (26.4%). Compared to 70,660 hospitalised with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2% to 4.3% versus 6.3% to 24.6%). Conclusions: Patients with autoimmune diseases had high rates of respiratory complications and 30-day mortality following a hospitalization with COVID-19. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. Future studies should investigate predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune diseases.

Baseline phenotype and 30-day outcomes of people tested for COVID-19: an international network cohort including >3.32 million people tested with real-time PCR and >219,000 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in South Korea, Spain and the United States (preprint)

Early identification of symptoms and comorbidities most predictive of COVID-19 is critical to identify infection, guide policies to effectively contain the pandemic, and improve health systems' response. Here, we characterised socio-demographics and comorbidity in 3,316,107 persons tested and 219,072 persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020, and their key health outcomes in the month following the first positive test. Routine care data from primary care electronic health records (EHR) from Spain, hospital EHR from the United States (US), and claims data from South Korea and the US were used. The majority of study participants were women aged 18-65 years old. Positive/tested ratio varied greatly geographically (2.2:100 to 31.2:100) and over time (from 50:100 in February-April to 6.8:100 in May-June). Fever, cough and dyspnoea were the most common symptoms at presentation. Between 4%-38% required admission and 1-10.5% died within a month from their first positive test. Observed disparity in testing practices led to variable baseline characteristics and outcomes, both nationally (US) and internationally. Our findings highlight the importance of large scale characterization of COVID-19 international cohorts to inform planning and resource allocation including testing as countries face a second wave.

Clinical characteristics, symptoms, management and health outcomes in 8,598 pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 compared to 27,510 with seasonal influenza in France, Spain and the US: a network cohort analysis (preprint)

OBJECTIVES: To describe comorbidities, symptoms at presentation, medication use, and 30-day outcomes after a diagnosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women, in comparison to pregnant women with influenza. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort SETTING: A total of 6 databases consisting of electronic medical records and claims data from France, Spain, and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with [≥] 1 year in contributing databases, diagnosed and/or tested positive, or hospitalized with COVID-19. The influenza cohort was derived from the 2017-2018 influenza season. OUTCOMES: Baseline patient characteristics, comorbidities and presenting symptoms; 30-day inpatient drug utilization, maternal complications and pregnancy-related outcomes following diagnosis/hospitalization. RESULTS: 8,598 women diagnosed (2,031 hospitalized) with COVID-19 were included. Hospitalized women had, compared to those diagnosed, a higher prevalence of pre-existing comorbidities including renal impairment (2.2% diagnosed vs 5.1% hospitalized) and anemia (15.5% diagnosed vs 21.3% hospitalized). The ten most common inpatient treatments were systemic corticosteroids (29.6%), enoxaparin (24.0%), immunoglobulins (21.4%), famotidine (20.9%), azithromycin (18.1%), heparin (15.8%), ceftriaxone (7.9%), aspirin (7.0%), hydroxychloroquine (5.4%) and amoxicillin (3.5%). Compared to 27,510 women with influenza, dyspnea and anosmia were more prevalent in those with COVID-19. Women with COVID-19 had higher frequency of cesarean-section (4.4% vs 3.1%), preterm delivery (0.9% vs 0.5%), and poorer maternal outcomes: pneumonia (12.0% vs 2.7%), ARDS (4.0% vs 0.3%) and sepsis (2.1% vs 0.7%). COVID-19 fatality was negligible (N<5 in each database respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities that were more prevalent with COVID-19 hospitalization (compared to COVID-19 diagnosed) in pregnancy included renal impairment and anemia. Multiple medications were used to treat pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19, some with little evidence of benefit. Anosmia and dyspnea were indicative symptoms of COVID-19 in pregnancy compared to influenza, and may aid differential diagnosis. Despite low fatality, pregnancy and maternal outcomes were worse in COVID-19 than influenza.

Heterogeneity and temporal variation in the management of COVID-19: a multinational drug utilization study including 71,921 hospitalized patients from China, South Korea, Spain, and the United States of America (preprint)

Objectives: A plethora of medicines have been repurposed or used as adjunctive therapies for COVID-19. We characterized the utilization of medicines as prescribed in routine practice amongst patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in South Korea, China, Spain, and the USA. Design: International network cohort Setting: Hospital electronic health records from Columbia University Irving Medical Centre (NYC, USA), Stanford (CA, USA), Tufts (MA, USA), Premier (USA), Optum EHR (USA), department of veterans affairs (USA), NFHCRD (Honghu, China) and HM Hospitals (Spain); and nationwide claims from HIRA (South Korea) Participants: patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January to June 2020 Main outcome measures: Prescription/dispensation of any medicine on or 30 days after hospital admission date Analyses: Number and percentage of users overall and over time Results: 71,921 people were included: 304 from China, 2,089 from Spain, 7,599 from South Korea, and 61,929 from the USA. A total of 3,455 medicines were identified. Common repurposed medicines included hydroxychloroquine (<2% in NFHCRD to 85.4% in HM), azithromycin (4.9% in NFHCRD to 56.5% in HM), lopinavir/ritonavir (<3% in all US but 34.9% in HIRA and 56.5% in HM), and umifenovir (0% in all except 78.3% in NFHCRD). Adjunctive medicines were used with great variability, with the ten most used treatments being (in descending order): bemiparin, enoxaparin, heparin, ceftriaxone, aspirin, vitamin D, famotidine, vitamin C, dexamethasone, and metformin. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increased rapidly in use in March-April but declined steeply in May-June. Conclusions: Multiple medicines were used in the first months of COVID-19 pandemic, with substantial geographic and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed medicines. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management of COVID-19.

Risk of depression, suicidal ideation, suicide and psychosis with hydroxychloroquine treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: a multi-national network cohort study (preprint)

ABSTRACT Objectives Concern has been raised in the rheumatological community regarding recent regulatory warnings that hydroxychloroquine used in the COVID-19 pandemic could cause acute psychiatric events. We aimed to study whether there is risk of incident depression, suicidal ideation, or psychosis associated with hydroxychloroquine as used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods New user cohort study using claims and electronic medical records from 10 sources and 3 countries (Germany, UK and US). RA patients aged 18+ and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared to those initiating sulfasalazine (active comparator) and followed up in the short (30-day) and long term (on treatment). Study outcomes included depression, suicide/suicidal ideation, and hospitalization for psychosis. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate database-specific calibrated hazard ratios (HR), with estimates pooled where I 2 <40%. Results 918,144 and 290,383 users of hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine, respectively, were included. No consistent risk of psychiatric events was observed with short-term hydroxychloroquine (compared to sulfasalazine) use, with meta-analytic HRs of 0.96 [0.79-1.16] for depression, 0.94 [0.49-1.77] for suicide/suicidal ideation, and 1.03 [0.66-1.60] for psychosis. No consistent long-term risk was seen, with meta-analytic HRs 0.94 [0.71-1.26] for depression, 0.77 [0.56-1.07] for suicide/suicidal ideation, and 0.99 [0.72-1.35] for psychosis. Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine as used to treat RA does not appear to increase the risk of depression, suicide/suicidal ideation, or psychosis compared to sulfasalazine. No effects were seen in the short or long term. Use at higher dose or for different indications needs further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered with EU PAS; Reference number EUPAS34497 ( http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=34498 ). The full study protocol and analysis source code can be found at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Covid19EstimationHydroxychloroquine . WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC Recent regulatory warnings have raised concerns of potential psychiatric side effects of hydroxychloroquine at the doses used to treat COVID-19, generating concern in the rheumatological community Serious psychiatric adverse events such as suicide, acute psychosis, and depressive episodes have been identified by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse events reporting system and at case report level WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS This is the largest study on the neuro-psychiatric safety of hydroxychloroquine to date, including >900,000 users treated for their RA in country-level or private health care systems in Germany, the UK, and the US We find no association between the use of hydroxychloroquine and the risk of depression, suicide/suicidal ideation, or severe psychosis compared to sulfasalazine HOW MIGHT THIS IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE Our data shows no association between hydroxychloroquine treatment for RA and risk of depression, suicide or psychosis compared to sulfasalazine. These findings do not support stopping or switching hydroxychloroquine treatment as used for RA due to recent concerns based on COVID-19 treated patients.

An international characterisation of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and a comparison with those previously hospitalised with influenza (preprint)

Background In this study we phenotyped individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in depth, summarising entire medical histories, including medications, as captured in routinely collected data drawn from databases across three continents. We then compared individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 to those previously hospitalised with influenza. Methods We report demographics, previously recorded conditions and medication use of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the US (Columbia University Irving Medical Center [CUIMC], Premier Healthcare Database [PHD], UCHealth System Health Data Compass Database [UC HDC], and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA OMOP]), in South Korea (Health Insurance Review & Assessment [HIRA]), and Spain (The Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP] and HM Hospitales [HM]). These patients were then compared with patients hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19. Results 34,128 (US: 8,362, South Korea: 7,341, Spain: 18,425) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 were included. Between 4,811 (HM) and 11,643 (CUIMC) unique aggregate characteristics were extracted per patient, with all summarised in an accompanying interactive website (http://evidence.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationHospitalization/). Patients were majority male in the US (CUIMC: 52%, PHD: 52%, UC HDC: 54%, VA OMOP: 94%,) and Spain (SIDIAP: 54%, HM: 60%), but were predominantly female in South Korea (HIRA: 60%). Age profiles varied across data sources. Prevalence of asthma ranged from 4% to 15%, diabetes from 13% to 43%, and hypertensive disorder from 24% to 70% across data sources. Between 14% and 33% were taking drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system in the 30 days prior to hospitalisation. Compared to 81,596 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, patients admitted with COVID-19 were more typically male, younger, and healthier, with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. Conclusions We provide a detailed characterisation of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Protecting groups known to be vulnerable to influenza is a useful starting point to minimize the number of hospital admissions needed for COVID-19. However, such strategies will also likely need to be broadened so as to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals hospitalised with COVID-19.

Safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, in light of rapid wide-spread use for COVID-19: a multinational, network cohort and self-controlled case series study (preprint)

BackgroundHydroxychloroquine has recently received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and is currently prescribed in combination with azithromycin for COVID-19 pneumonia. We studied the safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin. MethodsNew user cohort studies were conducted including 16 severe adverse events (SAEs). Rheumatoid arthritis patients aged 18+ and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared to those initiating sulfasalazine and followed up over 30 days. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) were conducted to further establish safety in wider populations. Separately, SAEs associated with hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin (compared to hydroxychloroquine-amoxicillin) were studied. Data comprised 14 sources of claims data or electronic medical records from Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, UK, and USA. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (CalHRs) according to drug use. Estimates were pooled where I2<40%. ResultsOverall, 956,374 and 310,350 users of hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine, and 323,122 and 351,956 users of hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine-amoxicillin were included. No excess risk of SAEs was identified when 30-day hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were compared. SCCS confirmed these findings. However, when azithromycin was added to hydroxychloroquine, we observed an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (CalHR2.19 [1.22-3.94]), chest pain/angina (CalHR 1.15 [95% CI 1.05-1.26]), and heart failure (CalHR 1.22 [95% CI 1.02-1.45]) ConclusionsShort-term hydroxychloroquine treatment is safe, but addition of azithromycin may induce heart failure and cardiovascular mortality, potentially due to synergistic effects on QT length. We call for caution if such combination is to be used in the management of Covid-19. Trial registration numberRegistered with EU PAS; Reference number EUPAS34497 (http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=34498). The full study protocol and analysis source code can be found at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Covid19EstimationHydroxychloroquine. Funding sourcesThis research received partial support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and Senior Research Fellowship (DPA), US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, and by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [grant number: HI16C0992]. Personal funding included Versus Arthritis [21605] (JL), MRC-DTP [MR/K501256/1] (JL), MRC and FAME (APU). The European Health Data & Evidence Network has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 806968. The JU receives support from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. No funders had a direct role in this study. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Clinician Scientist Award programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health, England.