CODE-EHR best practice framework for the use of structured electronic healthcare records in clinical research.

Big data is central to new developments in global clinical science aiming to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the routine use of structured electronic healthcare records with the potential to address key gaps in clinical evidence. The covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the potential of big data and related analytics, but also important pitfalls. Verification, validation, and data privacy, as well as the social mandate to undertake research are key challenges. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including patient representatives, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors and industry. We propose the CODE-EHR Minimum Standards Framework as a means to improve the design of studies, enhance transparency and develop a roadmap towards more robust and effective utilisation of healthcare data for research purposes.

CODE-EHR best-practice framework for the use of structured electronic health-care records in clinical research.

Big data is important to new developments in global clinical science that aim to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the regular use of structured electronic health-care records with the potential to address key deficits in clinical evidence that could improve patient care. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown this potential in big data and related analytics but has also revealed important limitations. Data verification, data validation, data privacy, and a mandate from the public to conduct research are important challenges to effective use of routine health-care data. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including representation from patients, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors, and industry members. In this Review, we propose the CODE-EHR minimum standards framework to be used by researchers and clinicians to improve the design of studies and enhance transparency of study methods. The CODE-EHR framework aims to develop robust and effective utilisation of health-care data for research purposes.

Symptoms and risk factors for long COVID in non-hospitalized adults.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a range of persistent symptoms impacting everyday functioning, known as post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. We undertook a retrospective matched cohort study using a UK-based primary care database, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, to determine symptoms that are associated with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection beyond 12 weeks in non-hospitalized adults and the risk factors associated with developing persistent symptoms. We selected 486,149 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1,944,580 propensity score-matched adults with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes included 115 individual symptoms, as well as long COVID, defined as a composite outcome of 33 symptoms by the World Health Organization clinical case definition. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the outcomes. A total of 62 symptoms were significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 weeks. The largest aHRs were for anosmia (aHR 6.49, 95% CI 5.02-8.39), hair loss (3.99, 3.63-4.39), sneezing (2.77, 1.40-5.50), ejaculation difficulty (2.63, 1.61-4.28) and reduced libido (2.36, 1.61-3.47). Among the cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for long COVID included female sex, belonging to an ethnic minority, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, obesity and a wide range of comorbidities. The risk of developing long COVID was also found to be increased along a gradient of decreasing age. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a plethora of symptoms that are associated with a range of sociodemographic and clinical risk factors.

Increased COVID-19 mortality rate in rare disease patients: a retrospective cohort study in participants of the Genomics England 100,000 Genomes project.

BACKGROUND: Several common conditions have been widely recognised as risk factors for COVID-19 related death, but risks borne by people with rare diseases are largely unknown. Therefore, we aim to estimate the difference of risk for people with rare diseases comparing to the unaffected. METHOD: To estimate the correlation between rare diseases and COVID-19 related death, we performed a retrospective cohort study in Genomics England 100k Genomes participants, who tested positive for Sars-Cov-2 during the first wave (16-03-2020 until 31-July-2020) of COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (n = 283). COVID-19 related mortality rates were calculated in two groups: rare disease patients (n = 158) and unaffected relatives (n = 125). Fisher's exact test and logistic regression was used for univariable and multivariable analysis, respectively. RESULTS: People with rare diseases had increased risk of COVID19-related deaths compared to the unaffected relatives (OR [95% CI] = 3.47 [1.21- 12.2]). Although, the effect was insignificant after adjusting for age and number of comorbidities (OR [95% CI] = 1.94 [0.65-5.80]). Neurology and neurodevelopmental diseases was significantly associated with COVID19-related death in both univariable (OR [95% CI] = 4.07 [1.61-10.38]) and multivariable analysis (OR [95% CI] = 4.22 [1.60-11.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that rare disease patients, especially ones affected by neurology and neurodevelopmental disorders, in the Genomics England cohort had increased risk of COVID-19 related death during the first wave of the pandemic in UK. The high risk is likely associated with rare diseases themselves, while we cannot rule out possible mediators due to the small sample size. We would like to raise the awareness that rare disease patients may face increased risk for COVID-19 related death. Proper considerations for rare disease patients should be taken when relevant policies (e.g., returning to workplace) are made.

30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of the GENEVA data.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data comparing 30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study aimed to compare the 30-day safety of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis utilised data collected from the GENEVA study which was a multicentre observational cohort study of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in 185 centres across 42 countries between 01/05/2022 and 31/10/2020 during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 30-day complications were categorised according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients receiving SG, RYGB, or OAGB were propensity-matched according to baseline characteristics and 30-day complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 6770 patients (SG 3983; OAGB 702; RYGB 2085) were included in this analysis. Prior to matching, RYGB was associated with highest 30-day complication rate (SG 5.8%; OAGB 7.5%; RYGB 8.0% (p = 0.006)). On multivariate regression modelling, Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia were associated with increased 30-day complications. Being a non-smoker was associated with reduced complication rates. When compared to SG as a reference category, RYGB, but not OAGB, was associated with an increased rate of 30-day complications. A total of 702 pairs of SG and OAGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 7.3% (n = 51) as compared to 7.5% (n = 53) in the OAGB group (p = 0.68). Similarly, 2085 pairs of SG and RYGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 6.1% (n = 127) as compared to 7.9% (n = 166) in the RYGB group (p = 0.09). And, 702 pairs of OAGB and RYGB were matched. The complication rate in both groups was the same at 7.5 % (n = 53; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This global study found no significant difference in the 30-day morbidity and mortality of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts.

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries.

BACKGROUND: There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. METHODS: We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. CONCLUSIONS: BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak.

Ensemble learning for poor prognosis predictions: A case study on SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE: Risk prediction models are widely used to inform evidence-based clinical decision making. However, few models developed from single cohorts can perform consistently well at population level where diverse prognoses exist (such as the SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] pandemic). This study aims at tackling this challenge by synergizing prediction models from the literature using ensemble learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we selected and reimplemented 7 prediction models for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) that were derived from diverse cohorts and used different implementation techniques. A novel ensemble learning framework was proposed to synergize them for realizing personalized predictions for individual patients. Four diverse international cohorts (2 from the United Kingdom and 2 from China; N = 5394) were used to validate all 8 models on discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. RESULTS: Results showed that individual prediction models could perform well on some cohorts while poorly on others. Conversely, the ensemble model achieved the best performances consistently on all metrics quantifying discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. Performance disparities were observed in cohorts from the 2 countries: all models achieved better performances on the China cohorts. DISCUSSION: When individual models were learned from complementary cohorts, the synergized model had the potential to achieve better performances than any individual model. Results indicate that blood parameters and physiological measurements might have better predictive powers when collected early, which remains to be confirmed by further studies. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a diverse set of individual prediction models, the ensemble method can synergize a robust and well-performing model by choosing the most competent ones for individual patients.

Evaluation and improvement of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) for COVID-19: a multi-hospital study.

BACKGROUND: The National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the UK for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to evaluate NEWS2 for the prediction of severe COVID-19 outcome and identify and validate a set of blood and physiological parameters routinely collected at hospital admission to improve upon the use of NEWS2 alone for medium-term risk stratification. METHODS: Training cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to King's College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1 March to 30 April 2020. External validation cohorts included 6237 patients from five UK NHS Trusts (Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals, University Hospitals Birmingham), one hospital in Norway (Oslo University Hospital), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID-19 disease (transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models. RESULTS: A baseline model of 'NEWS2 + age' had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID-19 infection at 14 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in training cohort = 0.700, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192, 95% CI 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI 0.715, 0.757), and these improvements were replicated across seven UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites. CONCLUSIONS: NEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID-19 outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID.