Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with COPD from the United States, South Korea, and Europe.

Background: Characterization studies of COVID-19 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited in size and scope. The aim of the study is to provide a large-scale characterization of COVID-19 patients with COPD. Methods: We included thirteen databases contributing data from January-June 2020 from North America (US), Europe and Asia. We defined two cohorts of patients with COVID-19 namely a 'diagnosed' and 'hospitalized' cohort. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes among COPD patients with COVID-19. Results: The study included 934,778 patients in the diagnosed COVID-19 cohort and 177,201 in the hospitalized COVID-19 cohort. Observed COPD prevalence in the diagnosed cohort ranged from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5-4.1%) in French data to 22.7% (95%CI 22.4-23.0) in US data, and from 1.9% (95%CI 1.6-2.2) in South Korean to 44.0% (95%CI 43.1-45.0) in US data, in the hospitalized cohorts. COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort had greater comorbidity than those in the diagnosed cohort, including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality was higher in COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort and ranged from 7.6% (95%CI 6.9-8.4) to 32.2% (95%CI 28.0-36.7) across databases. ARDS, acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmia and sepsis were the most common outcomes among hospitalized COPD patients.   Conclusion: COPD patients with COVID-19 have high levels of COVID-19-associated comorbidities and poor COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is required to identify patients with COPD at high risk of worse outcomes.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without asthma from the United States, South Korea, and Europe.

Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma.Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions.Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6-8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7-6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2-18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0-6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6-22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8-20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15-30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients.Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients.[Box: see text]Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392 .

Characteristics and Outcomes of Over 300,000 Patients with COVID-19 and History of Cancer in the United States and Spain.

BACKGROUND: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent. IMPACT: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed 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 assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes-diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services-using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. 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 pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71-1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers-further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed 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 assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes—diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services—using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. 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 pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92–1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89–1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71–1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers—further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness rates by week and sources of bias: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness over six 7-day intervals after the first dose and assess underlying bias in observational data. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study using Columbia University Irving Medical Center data linked to state and city immunisation registries. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used large-scale propensity score matching with up to 54 987 covariates, fitted Cox proportional hazards models and constructed Kaplan-Meier plots for two main outcomes (COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-associated hospitalisation). We conducted manual chart review of cases in week 1 in both groups along with a set of secondary analyses for other index date, outcome and population choices. RESULTS: The study included 179 666 patients. We observed increasing effectiveness after the first dose of mRNA vaccines with week 6 effectiveness approximating 84% (95% CI 72% to 91%) for COVID-19 infection and 86% (95% CI 69% to 95%) for COVID-19-associated hospitalisation. When analysing unexpectedly high effectiveness in week 1, chart review revealed that vaccinated patients are less likely to seek care after vaccination and are more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 during the encounters for other conditions. Secondary analyses highlighted potential outcome misclassification for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis, the influence of excluding patients with prior COVID-19 infection and anchoring in the unexposed group. Long-term vaccine effectiveness in fully vaccinated patients matched the results of the randomised trials. CONCLUSIONS: For vaccine effectiveness studies, observational data need to be scrutinised to ensure compared groups exhibit similar health-seeking behaviour and are equally likely to be captured in the data. While we found that studies may be capable of accurately estimating long-term effectiveness despite bias in early weeks, the early week results should be reported in every study so that we may gain a better understanding of the biases. Given the difference in temporal trends of vaccine exposure and patients' baseline characteristics, indirect comparison of vaccines may produce biased results.

Factors Influencing Background Incidence Rate Calculation: Systematic Empirical Evaluation Across an International Network of Observational Databases.

Objective: Background incidence rates are routinely used in safety studies to evaluate an association of an exposure and outcome. Systematic research on sensitivity of rates to the choice of the study parameters is lacking. Materials and Methods: We used 12 data sources to systematically examine the influence of age, race, sex, database, time-at-risk, season and year, prior observation and clean window on incidence rates using 15 adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines as an example. For binary comparisons we calculated incidence rate ratios and performed random-effect meta-analysis. Results: We observed a wide variation of background rates that goes well beyond age and database effects previously observed. While rates vary up to a factor of 1,000 across age groups, even after adjusting for age and sex, the study showed residual bias due to the other parameters. Rates were highly influenced by the choice of anchoring (e.g., health visit, vaccination, or arbitrary date) for the time-at-risk start. Anchoring on a healthcare encounter yielded higher incidence comparing to a random date, especially for short time-at-risk. Incidence rates were highly influenced by the choice of the database (varying by up to a factor of 100), clean window choice and time-at-risk duration, and less so by secular or seasonal trends. Conclusion: Comparing background to observed rates requires appropriate adjustment and careful time-at-risk start and duration choice. Results should be interpreted in the context of study parameter choices.

Characterizing Anchoring Bias in Vaccine Comparator Selection Due to Health Care Utilization With COVID-19 and Influenza: Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Observational data enables large-scale vaccine safety surveillance but requires careful evaluation of the potential sources of bias. One potential source of bias is the index date selection procedure for the unvaccinated cohort or unvaccinated comparison time ("anchoring"). OBJECTIVE: Here, we evaluated the different index date selection procedures for 2 vaccinations: COVID-19 and influenza. METHODS: For each vaccine, we extracted patient baseline characteristics on the index date and up to 450 days prior and then compared them to the characteristics of the unvaccinated patients indexed on (1) an arbitrary date or (2) a date of a visit. Additionally, we compared vaccinated patients indexed on the date of vaccination and the same patients indexed on a prior date or visit. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccination and influenza vaccination differ drastically from each other in terms of the populations vaccinated and their status on the day of vaccination. When compared to indexing on a visit in the unvaccinated population, influenza vaccination had markedly higher covariate proportions, and COVID-19 vaccination had lower proportions of most covariates on the index date. In contrast, COVID-19 vaccination had similar covariate proportions when compared to an arbitrary date. These effects attenuated, but were still present, with a longer lookback period. The effect of day 0 was present even when the patients served as their own controls. CONCLUSIONS: Patient baseline characteristics are sensitive to the choice of the index date. In vaccine safety studies, unexposed index event should represent vaccination settings. Study designs previously used to assess influenza vaccination must be reassessed for COVID-19 to account for a potentially healthier population and lack of medical activity on the day of vaccination.

Seek COVER: using a disease proxy to rapidly develop and validate a personalized risk calculator for COVID-19 outcomes in an international network.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether we could use influenza data to develop prediction models for COVID-19 to increase the speed at which prediction models can reliably be developed and validated early in a pandemic. We developed COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patient's risk of hospital admission with pneumonia (COVER-H), hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms and tested this in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries containing data collected on or before 4/27/2020. We used a 2-step process to develop 3 scores using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The first step was to create a data-driven model using LASSO regularized logistic regression, the covariates of which were used to develop aggregate covariates for the second step where the COVER scores were developed using a smaller set of features. These 3 COVER scores were then externally validated on patients with 1) influenza or flu-like symptoms and 2) confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across 5 databases from South Korea, Spain, and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death, and iii) death in the 30 days after index date. RESULTS: Overall, 44,507 COVID-19 patients were included for model validation. We identified 7 predictors (history of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease) which combined with age and sex discriminated which patients would experience any of our three outcomes. The models achieved good performance in influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. For COVID-19 the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69-0.81, COVER-I: 0.73-0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72-0.90. Calibration varied across the validations with some of the COVID-19 validations being less well calibrated than the influenza validations. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrated the utility of using a proxy disease to develop a prediction model. The 3 COVER models with 9-predictors that were developed using influenza data perform well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality. The scores showed good discriminatory performance which transferred well to the COVID-19 population. There was some miscalibration in the COVID-19 validations, which is potentially due to the difference in symptom severity between the two diseases. A possible solution for this is to recalibrate the models in each location before use.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 with and without prevalent hypertension: a multinational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients. DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a retrospective cohort study using 15 healthcare databases (primary and secondary electronic healthcare records, insurance and national claims data) from the USA, Europe and South Korea, standardised to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. Data were gathered from 1 March to 31 October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Two non-mutually exclusive cohorts were defined: (1) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (diagnosed cohort) and (2) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 (hospitalised cohort), and stratified by hypertension status. Follow-up was from COVID-19 diagnosis/hospitalisation to death, end of the study period or 30 days. OUTCOMES: Demographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported. RESULTS: We identified 2 851 035 diagnosed and 563 708 hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Hypertension was more prevalent in the latter (ranging across databases from 17.4% (95% CI 17.2 to 17.6) to 61.4% (95% CI 61.0 to 61.8) and from 25.6% (95% CI 24.6 to 26.6) to 85.9% (95% CI 85.2 to 86.6)). Patients in both cohorts with hypertension were predominantly >50 years old and female. Patients with hypertension were frequently diagnosed with obesity, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes. Compared with patients without hypertension, patients with hypertension in the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort had more hospitalisations (ranging from 1.3% (95% CI 0.4 to 2.2) to 41.1% (95% CI 39.5 to 42.7) vs from 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) to 15.9% (95% CI 14.9 to 16.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) to 18.5% (95% CI 15.7 to 21.3) vs from 0.2% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.2) to 11.8% (95% CI 10.8 to 12.8)). Patients in the COVID-19 hospitalised cohort with hypertension were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ranging from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 65.6% (95% CI 62.5 to 68.7) vs from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 54.7% (95% CI 50.5 to 58.9)), arrhythmia (ranging from 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) to 45.8% (95% CI 42.6 to 49.0) vs from 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) to 36.8% (95% CI 32.7 to 40.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 1.8% (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2) to 25.1% (95% CI 23.0 to 27.2) vs from 0.7% (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) to 10.9% (95% CI 10.4 to 11.4)) than patients without hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension.

Columbia Open Health Data for COVID-19 Research: Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has threatened the health of tens of millions of people all over the world. Massive research efforts have been made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of clinical data can accelerate these research efforts to combat the pandemic since important characteristics of the patients are often found by examining the clinical data. Publicly accessible clinical data on COVID-19, however, remain limited despite the immediate need. OBJECTIVE: To provide shareable clinical data to catalyze COVID-19 research, we present Columbia Open Health Data for COVID-19 Research (COHD-COVID), a publicly accessible database providing clinical concept prevalence, clinical concept co-occurrence, and clinical symptom prevalence for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. COHD-COVID also provides data on hospitalized patients with influenza and general hospitalized patients as comparator cohorts. METHODS: The data used in COHD-COVID were obtained from NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center's electronic health records database. Condition, drug, and procedure concepts were obtained from the visits of identified patients from the cohorts. Rare concepts were excluded, and the true concept counts were perturbed using Poisson randomization to protect patient privacy. Concept prevalence, concept prevalence ratio, concept co-occurrence, and symptom prevalence were calculated using the obtained concepts. RESULTS: Concept prevalence and concept prevalence ratio analyses showed the clinical characteristics of the COVID-19 cohorts, confirming the well-known characteristics of COVID-19 (eg, acute lower respiratory tract infection and cough). The concepts related to the well-known characteristics of COVID-19 recorded high prevalence and high prevalence ratio in the COVID-19 cohort compared to the hospitalized influenza cohort and general hospitalized cohort. Concept co-occurrence analyses showed potential associations between specific concepts. In case of acute lower respiratory tract infection in the COVID-19 cohort, a high co-occurrence ratio was obtained with COVID-19-related concepts and commonly used drugs (eg, disease due to coronavirus and acetaminophen). Symptom prevalence analysis indicated symptom-level characteristics of the cohorts and confirmed that well-known symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, cough, and dyspnea) showed higher prevalence than the hospitalized influenza cohort and the general hospitalized cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We present COHD-COVID, a publicly accessible database providing useful clinical data for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, hospitalized patients with influenza, and general hospitalized patients. We expect COHD-COVID to provide researchers and clinicians quantitative measures of COVID-19-related clinical features to better understand and combat the pandemic.

Thirty-Day Outcomes of Children and Adolescents With COVID-19: An International Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children and adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to compare them in secondary analyses with patients diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza in 2017-2018. METHODS: International network cohort using real-world data from European primary care records (France, Germany, and Spain), South Korean claims and US claims, and hospital databases. We included children and adolescents diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020. We described baseline demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments, and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and death. RESULTS: A total of 242 158 children and adolescents diagnosed and 9769 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 2 084 180 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were more common among those hospitalized with versus diagnosed with COVID-19. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital prevalent treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%) and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8%-7.6%), famotidine (9.0%-28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0%-21.4%), heparin (2.2%-18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8%-14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the cohort diagnosed with COVID-19, with undetectable (n < 5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia and hypoxemia were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Despite negligible fatality, complications including hospitalization, hypoxemia, and pneumonia were more frequent in children and adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differentiate diagnoses. A wide range of medications was used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.

Characterising the background incidence rates of adverse events of special interest for covid-19 vaccines in eight countries: multinational network cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the background incidence rates of 15 prespecified adverse events of special interest (AESIs) associated with covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Electronic health records and health claims data from eight countries: Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, mapped to a common data model. PARTICIPANTS: 126 661 070 people observed for at least 365 days before 1 January 2017, 2018, or 2019 from 13 databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Events of interests were 15 prespecified AESIs (non-haemorrhagic and haemorrhagic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, anaphylaxis, Bell's palsy, myocarditis or pericarditis, narcolepsy, appendicitis, immune thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis (including acute disseminated encephalomyelitis), Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis). Incidence rates of AESIs were stratified by age, sex, and database. Rates were pooled across databases using random effects meta-analyses and classified according to the frequency categories of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. RESULTS: Background rates varied greatly between databases. Deep vein thrombosis ranged from 387 (95% confidence interval 370 to 404) per 100 000 person years in UK CPRD GOLD data to 1443 (1416 to 1470) per 100 000 person years in US IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid data among women aged 65 to 74 years. Some AESIs increased with age. For example, myocardial infarction rates in men increased from 28 (27 to 29) per 100 000 person years among those aged 18-34 years to 1400 (1374 to 1427) per 100 000 person years in those older than 85 years in US Optum electronic health record data. Other AESIs were more common in young people. For example, rates of anaphylaxis among boys and men were 78 (75 to 80) per 100 000 person years in those aged 6-17 years and 8 (6 to 10) per 100 000 person years in those older than 85 years in Optum electronic health record data. Meta-analytic estimates of AESI rates were classified according to age and sex. CONCLUSION: This study found large variations in the observed rates of AESIs by age group and sex, showing the need for stratification or standardisation before using background rates for safety surveillance. Considerable population level heterogeneity in AESI rates was found between databases.

Characterising the long-term clinical outcomes of 1190 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in New York City: a retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a large New York City medical centre at 3 and 6 months after hospitalisation and describe their healthcare usage, symptoms, morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort through manual chart review of the electronic medical record. SETTING: NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, a quaternary care academic medical centre in New York City. PARTICIPANTS: The first 1190 consecutive patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who presented to the hospital for care between 1 March and 8 April 2020 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on reverse transcriptase PCR assay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and frequency of follow-up encounters, self-reported symptoms, morbidity and mortality at 3 and 6 months after presentation, respectively; patient disposition information prior to admission, at discharge, and at 3 and 6 months after hospital presentation. RESULTS: Of the 1190 reviewed patients, 929 survived their initial hospitalisation and 261 died. Among survivors, 570 had follow-up encounters (488 at 3 months and 364 at 6 months). An additional 33 patients died in the follow-up period. In the first 3 months after admission, most encounters were telehealth visits (59%). Cardiopulmonary symptoms (35.7% and 28%), especially dyspnoea (22.1% and 15.9%), were the most common reported symptoms at 3-month and 6-month encounters, respectively. Additionally, a large number of patients reported generalised (26.4%) or neuropsychiatric (24.2%) symptoms 6 months after hospitalisation. Patients with severe COVID-19 were more likely to have reduced mobility, reduced independence or a new dialysis requirement in the 6 months after hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported persistent symptoms up to 6 months after diagnosis. These results highlight the long-term morbidity of COVID-19 and its burden on patients and healthcare resources.

Use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in hospital patients with covid-19: multinational network cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Hospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: 303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19. RESULTS: Of the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from <5 (<2%) patients in China to 2165 (85.1%) in Spain), azithromycin (from 15 (4.9%) in China to 1473 (57.9%) in Spain), combined lopinavir and ritonavir (from 156 (<2%) in the VA-OMOP US to 2,652 (34.9%) in South Korea and 1285 (50.5%) in Spain), and umifenovir (0% in the US, South Korea, and Spain and 238 (78.3%) in China). Use of adjunctive drugs varied greatly, with the five most used treatments being enoxaparin, fluoroquinolones, ceftriaxone, vitamin D, and corticosteroids. Hydroxychloroquine use increased rapidly from March to April 2020 but declined steeply in May to June and remained low for the rest of the year. The use of dexamethasone and corticosteroids increased steadily during 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple drugs were used in the first few months of the covid-19 pandemic, with substantial geographical and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed drugs. 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.

Drawing Reproducible Conclusions from Observational Clinical Data with OHDSI.

OBJECTIVE: The current observational research literature shows extensive publication bias and contradiction. The Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) initiative seeks to improve research reproducibility through open science. METHODS: OHDSI has created an international federated data source of electronic health records and administrative claims that covers nearly 10% of the world's population. Using a common data model with a practical schema and extensive vocabulary mappings, data from around the world follow the identical format. OHDSI's research methods emphasize reproducibility, with a large-scale approach to addressing confounding using propensity score adjustment with extensive diagnostics; negative and positive control hypotheses to test for residual systematic error; a variety of data sources to assess consistency and generalizability; a completely open approach including protocol, software, models, parameters, and raw results so that studies can be externally verified; and the study of many hypotheses in parallel so that the operating characteristics of the methods can be assessed. RESULTS: OHDSI has already produced findings in areas like hypertension treatment that are being incorporated into practice, and it has produced rigorous studies of COVID-19 that have aided government agencies in their treatment decisions, that have characterized the disease extensively, that have estimated the comparative effects of treatments, and that the predict likelihood of advancing to serious complications. CONCLUSIONS: OHDSI practices open science and incorporates a series of methods to address reproducibility. It has produced important results in several areas, including hypertension therapy and COVID-19 research.

Implementation of the COVID-19 Vulnerability Index Across an International Network of Health Care Data Sets: Collaborative External Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the "prediction model risk of bias assessment" criteria, and it has not been externally validated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: We followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia. RESULTS: The internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. METHODS: A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%). CONCLUSION: Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

Development and validation of prediction models for mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and readmission in COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at risk for resource-intensive outcomes including mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and readmission. Accurate outcome prognostication could facilitate hospital resource allocation. We develop and validate predictive models for each outcome using retrospective electronic health record data for COVID-19 patients treated between March 2 and May 6, 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each outcome, we trained 3 classes of prediction models using clinical data for a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2)-positive patients (n = 2256). Cross-validation was used to select the best-performing models per the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic and precision-recall curves. Models were validated using a held-out cohort (n = 855). We measured each model's calibration and evaluated feature importances to interpret model output. RESULTS: The predictive performance for our selected models on the held-out cohort was as follows: area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve-MV 0.743 (95% CI, 0.682-0.812), RRT 0.847 (95% CI, 0.772-0.936), readmission 0.871 (95% CI, 0.830-0.917); area under the precision-recall curve-MV 0.137 (95% CI, 0.047-0.175), RRT 0.325 (95% CI, 0.117-0.497), readmission 0.504 (95% CI, 0.388-0.604). Predictions were well calibrated, and the most important features within each model were consistent with clinical intuition. DISCUSSION: Our models produce performant, well-calibrated, and interpretable predictions for COVID-19 patients at risk for the target outcomes. They demonstrate the potential to accurately estimate outcome prognosis in resource-constrained care sites managing COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: We develop and validate prognostic models targeting MV, RRT, and readmission for hospitalized COVID-19 patients which produce accurate, interpretable predictions. Additional external validation studies are needed to further verify the generalizability of our results.