Opinions on Homeopathy for COVID-19 on Twitter.

Homeopathy is a medical system originating in Germany more than 200 years ago. Based on prior investigations, mainstream health agencies and medical research communities indicate that there is little evidence that homeopathy can be an effective treatment for any specific health condition. However, it continues to be practiced as a popular form of alternative medicine in many countries, even during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we mine opinions on homeopathy for COVID-19 expressed in Twitter data. Our experiments are conducted with a dataset of nearly 60K tweets collected during a seven month period ending in July 2020. We first built text classifiers (linear and neural models) to mine opinions on homeopathy (positive, negative, neutral) from tweets using a dataset of 2400 hand-labeled tweets obtaining an average macro F-score of 81.5% for the positive and negative classes. We applied this model to identify opinions from the full dataset. Our results show that the number of unique positive tweets is twice that of the number of unique negative tweets; but when including retweets, there are 23% more negative tweets overall indicating that negative tweets are getting more retweets and better traction on Twitter. Using a word shift graph analysis on the Twitter bios of authors of positive and negative tweets, we observe that opinions on homeopathy appear to be correlated with political/religious ideologies of the authors (e.g., liberal vs nationalist, atheist vs Hindu). To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze public opinions on homeopathy on any social media platform. Our results surface a tricky landscape for public health agencies as they promote evidence-based therapies and preventative measures for COVID-19.

International electronic health record-derived post-acute sequelae profiles of COVID-19 patients.

The risk profiles of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) have not been well characterized in multi-national settings with appropriate controls. We leveraged electronic health record (EHR) data from 277 international hospitals representing 414,602 patients with COVID-19, 2.3 million control patients without COVID-19 in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and over 221 million diagnosis codes to systematically identify new-onset conditions enriched among patients with COVID-19 during the post-acute period. Compared to inpatient controls, inpatient COVID-19 cases were at significant risk for angina pectoris (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09-1.55), heart failure (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.35), cognitive dysfunctions (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.31), and fatigue (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30). Relative to outpatient controls, outpatient COVID-19 cases were at risk for pulmonary embolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.76), venous embolism (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.54), atrial fibrillation (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13-1.50), type 2 diabetes (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.36) and vitamin D deficiency (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.30). Outpatient COVID-19 cases were also at risk for loss of smell and taste (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.90-3.06), inflammatory neuropathy (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.21-2.27), and cognitive dysfunction (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.33). The incidence of post-acute cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions decreased across time among inpatient cases while the incidence of cardiovascular, digestive, and metabolic conditions increased among outpatient cases. Our study, based on a federated international network, systematically identified robust conditions associated with PASC compared to control groups, underscoring the multifaceted cardiovascular and neurological phenotype profiles of PASC.

Changes in laboratory value improvement and mortality rates over the course of the pandemic: an international retrospective cohort study of hospitalised patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in international mortality rates and laboratory recovery rates during hospitalisation for patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 between the first wave (1 March to 30 June 2020) and the second wave (1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 83 178 hospitalised patients admitted between 7 days before or 14 days after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by Electronic Health Record, an international multihealthcare system collaborative of 288 hospitals in the USA and Europe. The laboratory recovery rates and mortality rates over time were compared between the two waves of the pandemic. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate within 28 days after hospitalisation stratified by predicted low, medium and high mortality risk at baseline. The secondary outcome was the average rate of change in laboratory values during the first week of hospitalisation. RESULTS: Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and laboratory values at admission were not significantly different between the first and second waves. The improvement in laboratory values over time was faster in the second wave compared with the first. The average C reactive protein rate of change was -4.72 mg/dL vs -4.14 mg/dL per day (p=0.05). The mortality rates within each risk category significantly decreased over time, with the most substantial decrease in the high-risk group (42.3% in March-April 2020 vs 30.8% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001) and a moderate decrease in the intermediate-risk group (21.5% in March-April 2020 vs 14.3% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Admission profiles of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection did not differ greatly between the first and second waves of the pandemic, but there were notable differences in laboratory improvement rates during hospitalisation. Mortality risks among patients with similar risk profiles decreased over the course of the pandemic. The improvement in laboratory values and mortality risk was consistent across multiple countries.

Risk and Outcome of Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections in Vaccinated Patients With Cancer: Real-World Evidence From the National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

PURPOSE: To provide real-world evidence on risks and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in vaccinated patients with cancer using the largest national cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls. METHODS: We used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) to identify breakthrough infections between December 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021. We included patients partially or fully vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection record. Risks for breakthrough infection and severe outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 6,860 breakthrough cases were identified within the N3C-vaccinated population, among whom 1,460 (21.3%) were patients with cancer. Solid tumors and hematologic malignancies had significantly higher risks for breakthrough infection (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.12, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23 and 4.64, 95% CI, 3.98 to 5.38) and severe outcomes (ORs = 1.33, 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.62 and 1.45, 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.95) compared with noncancer patients, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, vaccine type, and vaccination date. Compared with solid tumors, hematologic malignancies were at increased risk for breakthrough infections (adjusted OR ranged from 2.07 for lymphoma to 7.25 for lymphoid leukemia). Breakthrough risk was reduced after the second vaccine dose for all cancers (OR = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.05), and for Moderna's mRNA-1273 compared with Pfizer's BNT162b2 vaccine (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.70), particularly in patients with multiple myeloma (OR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72). Medications with major immunosuppressive effects and bone marrow transplantation were strongly associated with breakthrough risk among the vaccinated population. CONCLUSION: Real-world evidence shows that patients with cancer, especially hematologic malignancies, are at higher risk for developing breakthrough infections and severe outcomes. Patients with vaccination were at markedly decreased risk for breakthrough infections. Further work is needed to assess boosters and new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Social Determinants of Health Factors for Gene-Environment COVID-19 Research: Challenges and Opportunities.

The characteristics of a person's health status are often guided by how they live, grow, learn, their genetics, as well as their access to health care. Yet, all too often, studies examining the relationship between social determinants of health (behavioral, sociocultural, and physical environmental factors), the role of demographics, and health outcomes poorly represent these relationships, leading to misinterpretations, limited study reproducibility, and datasets with limited representativeness and secondary research use capacity. This is a profound hurdle in what questions can or cannot be rigorously studied about COVID-19. In practice, gene-environment interactions studies have paved the way for including these factors into research. Similarly, our understanding of social determinants of health continues to expand with diverse data collection modalities as health systems, patients, and community health engagement aim to fill the knowledge gaps toward promoting health and wellness. Here, a conceptual framework is proposed, adapted from the population health framework, socioecological model, and causal modeling in gene-environment interaction studies to integrate the core constructs from each domain with practical considerations needed for multidisciplinary science.

Authorship Correction: International Changes in COVID-19 Clinical Trajectories Across 315 Hospitals and 6 Countries: Retrospective Cohort Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/31400.].

Characterizing Long COVID: Deep Phenotype of a Complex Condition.

BACKGROUND: Numerous publications describe the clinical manifestations of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC or "long COVID"), but they are difficult to integrate because of heterogeneous methods and the lack of a standard for denoting the many phenotypic manifestations. Patient-led studies are of particular importance for understanding the natural history of COVID-19, but integration is hampered because they often use different terms to describe the same symptom or condition. This significant disparity in patient versus clinical characterization motivated the proposed ontological approach to specifying manifestations, which will improve capture and integration of future long COVID studies. METHODS: The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) is a widely used standard for exchange and analysis of phenotypic abnormalities in human disease but has not yet been applied to the analysis of COVID-19. FUNDING: We identified 303 articles published before April 29, 2021, curated 59 relevant manuscripts that described clinical manifestations in 81 cohorts three weeks or more following acute COVID-19, and mapped 287 unique clinical findings to HPO terms. We present layperson synonyms and definitions that can be used to link patient self-report questionnaires to standard medical terminology. Long COVID clinical manifestations are not assessed consistently across studies, and most manifestations have been reported with a wide range of synonyms by different authors. Across at least 10 cohorts, authors reported 31 unique clinical features corresponding to HPO terms; the most commonly reported feature was Fatigue (median 45.1%) and the least commonly reported was Nausea (median 3.9%), but the reported percentages varied widely between studies. INTERPRETATION: Translating long COVID manifestations into computable HPO terms will improve analysis, data capture, and classification of long COVID patients. If researchers, clinicians, and patients share a common language, then studies can be compared/pooled more effectively. Furthermore, mapping lay terminology to HPO will help patients assist clinicians and researchers in creating phenotypic characterizations that are computationally accessible, thereby improving the stratification, diagnosis, and treatment of long COVID. FUNDING: U24TR002306; UL1TR001439; P30AG024832; GBMF4552; R01HG010067; UL1TR002535; K23HL128909; UL1TR002389; K99GM145411.

International Changes in COVID-19 Clinical Trajectories Across 315 Hospitals and 6 Countries: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have experienced 2 predominant waves of COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Comparing the clinical trajectories of patients hospitalized in separate waves of the pandemic enables further understanding of the evolving epidemiology, pathophysiology, and health care dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections hospitalized in participating health care systems representing 315 hospitals across 6 countries. We compared hospitalization rates, severe COVID-19 risk, and mean laboratory values between patients hospitalized during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: Using a federated approach, each participating health care system extracted patient-level clinical data on their first and second wave cohorts and submitted aggregated data to the central site. Data quality control steps were adopted at the central site to correct for implausible values and harmonize units. Statistical analyses were performed by computing individual health care system effect sizes and synthesizing these using random effect meta-analyses to account for heterogeneity. We focused the laboratory analysis on C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, fibrinogen, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and creatinine based on their reported associations with severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Data were available for 79,613 patients, of which 32,467 were hospitalized in the first wave and 47,146 in the second wave. The prevalence of male patients and patients aged 50 to 69 years decreased significantly between the first and second waves. Patients hospitalized in the second wave had a 9.9% reduction in the risk of severe COVID-19 compared to patients hospitalized in the first wave (95% CI 8.5%-11.3%). Demographic subgroup analyses indicated that patients aged 26 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years; male and female patients; and black patients had significantly lower risk for severe disease in the second wave than in the first wave. At admission, the mean values of CRP were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. On the seventh hospital day, the mean values of CRP, ferritin, fibrinogen, and procalcitonin were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. In general, countries exhibited variable changes in laboratory testing rates from the first to the second wave. At admission, there was a significantly higher testing rate for D-dimer in France, Germany, and Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients hospitalized in the second wave were at significantly lower risk for severe COVID-19. This corresponded to mean laboratory values in the second wave that were more likely to be in typical physiological ranges on the seventh hospital day compared to the first wave. Our federated approach demonstrated the feasibility and power of harmonizing heterogeneous EHR data from multiple international health care systems to rapidly conduct large-scale studies to characterize how COVID-19 clinical trajectories evolve.

Twitter discourse on nicotine as potential prophylactic or therapeutic for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: An unproven "nicotine hypothesis" that indicates nicotine's therapeutic potential for COVID-19 has been proposed in recent literature. This study is about Twitter posts that misinterpret this hypothesis to make baseless claims about benefits of smoking and vaping in the context of COVID-19. We quantify the presence of such misinformation and characterize the tweeters who post such messages. METHODS: Twitter premium API was used to download tweets (n = 17,533) that match terms indicating (a) nicotine or vaping themes, (b) a prophylactic or therapeutic effect, and (c) COVID-19 (January-July 2020) as a conjunctive query. A constraint on the length of the span of text containing the terms in the tweets allowed us to focus on those that convey the therapeutic intent. We hand-annotated these filtered tweets and built a classifier that identifies tweets that extrapolate the nicotine hypothesis to smoking/vaping with a positive predictive value of 85%. We analyzed the frequently used terms in author bios, top Web links, and hashtags of such tweets. RESULTS: 21% of our filtered COVID-19 tweets indicate a vaping or smoking-based prevention/treatment narrative. Qualitative analyses show a variety of ways therapeutic claims are being made and tweeter bios reveal pre-existing notions of positive stances toward vaping. CONCLUSION: The social media landscape is a double-edged sword in tobacco communication. Although it increases information reach, consumers can also be subject to confirmation bias when exposed to inadvertent or deliberate framing of scientific discourse that may border on misinformation. This calls for circumspection and additional planning in countering such narratives as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage our world. Our results also serve as a cautionary tale in how social media can be leveraged to spread misleading information about tobacco products in the wake of pandemics.

Twitter, Telepractice, and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Media Content Analysis.

Purpose Telepractice was extensively utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about issues experienced during the wide-scale rollout of a service delivery model that was novel to many. Social media research is a way to unobtrusively analyze public communication, including during a health crisis. We investigated the characteristics of tweets about telepractice through the lens of an established health technology implementation framework. Results can help guide efforts to support and sustain telehealth beyond the pandemic context. Method We retrieved a historical Twitter data set containing tweets about telepractice from the early months of the pandemic. Tweets were analyzed using a concurrent mixed-methods content analysis design informed by the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Results Approximately 2,200 Twitter posts were retrieved, and 820 original tweets were analyzed qualitatively. Volume of tweets about telepractice increased in the early months of the pandemic. The largest group of Twitter users tweeting about telepractice was a group of clinical professionals. Tweet content reflected many, but not all, domains of the NASSS framework. Conclusions Twitter posting about telepractice increased during the pandemic. Although many tweets represented topics expected in technology implementation, some represented phenomena were potentially unique to speech-language pathology. Certain technology implementation topics, notably sustainability, were not found in the data. Implications for future telepractice implementation and further research are discussed.

Clinical Characterization and Prediction of Clinical Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among US Adults Using Data From the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

Importance: The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) is a centralized, harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record repository that is the largest, most representative COVID-19 cohort to date. This multicenter data set can support robust evidence-based development of predictive and diagnostic tools and inform clinical care and policy. Objectives: To evaluate COVID-19 severity and risk factors over time and assess the use of machine learning to predict clinical severity. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study of 1 926 526 US adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (polymerase chain reaction >99% or antigen <1%) and adult patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection who served as controls from 34 medical centers nationwide between January 1, 2020, and December 7, 2020, patients were stratified using a World Health Organization COVID-19 severity scale and demographic characteristics. Differences between groups over time were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Random forest and XGBoost models were used to predict severe clinical course (death, discharge to hospice, invasive ventilatory support, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographic characteristics and COVID-19 severity using the World Health Organization COVID-19 severity scale and differences between groups over time using multivariable logistic regression. Results: The cohort included 174 568 adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (mean [SD] age, 44.4 [18.6] years; 53.2% female) and 1 133 848 adult controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [19.2] years; 57.1% female). Of the 174 568 adults with SARS-CoV-2, 32 472 (18.6%) were hospitalized, and 6565 (20.2%) of those had a severe clinical course (invasive ventilatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, death, or discharge to hospice). Of the hospitalized patients, mortality was 11.6% overall and decreased from 16.4% in March to April 2020 to 8.6% in September to October 2020 (P = .002 for monthly trend). Using 64 inputs available on the first hospital day, this study predicted a severe clinical course using random forest and XGBoost models (area under the receiver operating curve = 0.87 for both) that were stable over time. The factor most strongly associated with clinical severity was pH; this result was consistent across machine learning methods. In a separate multivariable logistic regression model built for inference, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04), male sex (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.51-1.69), liver disease (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34), dementia (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), African American (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) and Asian (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57) race, and obesity (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.27-1.46) were independently associated with higher clinical severity. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that COVID-19 mortality decreased over time during 2020 and that patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were associated with higher clinical severity. The machine learning models accurately predicted ultimate clinical severity using commonly collected clinical data from the first 24 hours of a hospital admission.