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.

International comparisons of laboratory values from the 4CE collaborative to predict COVID-19 mortality.

Given the growing number of prediction algorithms developed to predict COVID-19 mortality, we evaluated the transportability of a mortality prediction algorithm using a multi-national network of healthcare systems. We predicted COVID-19 mortality using baseline commonly measured laboratory values and standard demographic and clinical covariates across healthcare systems, countries, and continents. Specifically, we trained a Cox regression model with nine measured laboratory test values, standard demographics at admission, and comorbidity burden pre-admission. These models were compared at site, country, and continent level. Of the 39,969 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (68.6% male), 5717 (14.3%) died. In the Cox model, age, albumin, AST, creatine, CRP, and white blood cell count are most predictive of mortality. The baseline covariates are more predictive of mortality during the early days of COVID-19 hospitalization. Models trained at healthcare systems with larger cohort size largely retain good transportability performance when porting to different sites. The combination of routine laboratory test values at admission along with basic demographic features can predict mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Importantly, this potentially deployable model differs from prior work by demonstrating not only consistent performance but also reliable transportability across healthcare systems in the US and Europe, highlighting the generalizability of this model and the overall approach.

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.].

Multinational characterization of neurological phenotypes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Neurological complications worsen outcomes in COVID-19. To define the prevalence of neurological conditions among hospitalized patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test in geographically diverse multinational populations during early pandemic, we used electronic health records (EHR) from 338 participating hospitals across 6 countries and 3 continents (January-September 2020) for a cross-sectional analysis. We assessed the frequency of International Classification of Disease code of neurological conditions by countries, healthcare systems, time before and after admission for COVID-19 and COVID-19 severity. Among 35,177 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was an increase in the proportion with disorders of consciousness (5.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-7.8%, pFDR < 0.001) and unspecified disorders of the brain (8.1%, 5.7-10.5%, pFDR < 0.001) when compared to the pre-admission proportion. During hospitalization, the relative risk of disorders of consciousness (22%, 19-25%), cerebrovascular diseases (24%, 13-35%), nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (34%, 20-50%), encephalitis and/or myelitis (37%, 17-60%) and myopathy (72%, 67-77%) were higher for patients with severe COVID-19 when compared to those who never experienced severe COVID-19. Leveraging a multinational network to capture standardized EHR data, we highlighted the increased prevalence of central and peripheral neurological phenotypes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, particularly among those with severe disease.

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.

International Analysis of Electronic Health Records of Children and Youth Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection in 6 Countries.

Importance: Additional sources of pediatric epidemiological and clinical data are needed to efficiently study COVID-19 in children and youth and inform infection prevention and clinical treatment of pediatric patients. Objective: To describe international hospitalization trends and key epidemiological and clinical features of children and youth with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included pediatric patients hospitalized between February 2 and October 10, 2020. Patient-level electronic health record (EHR) data were collected across 27 hospitals in France, Germany, Spain, Singapore, the UK, and the US. Patients younger than 21 years who tested positive for COVID-19 and were hospitalized at an institution participating in the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR were included in the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient characteristics, clinical features, and medication use. Results: There were 347 males (52%; 95% CI, 48.5-55.3) and 324 females (48%; 95% CI, 44.4-51.3) in this study's cohort. There was a bimodal age distribution, with the greatest proportion of patients in the 0- to 2-year (199 patients [30%]) and 12- to 17-year (170 patients [25%]) age range. Trends in hospitalizations for 671 children and youth found discrete surges with variable timing across 6 countries. Data from this cohort mirrored national-level pediatric hospitalization trends for most countries with available data, with peaks in hospitalizations during the initial spring surge occurring within 23 days in the national-level and 4CE data. A total of 27 364 laboratory values for 16 laboratory tests were analyzed, with mean values indicating elevations in markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, 83 mg/L; 95% CI, 53-112 mg/L; ferritin, 417 ng/mL; 95% CI, 228-607 ng/mL; and procalcitonin, 1.45 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.13-2.77 ng/mL). Abnormalities in coagulation were also evident (D-dimer, 0.78 ug/mL; 95% CI, 0.35-1.21 ug/mL; and fibrinogen, 477 mg/dL; 95% CI, 385-569 mg/dL). Cardiac troponin, when checked (n = 59), was elevated (0.032 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.000-0.080 ng/mL). Common complications included cardiac arrhythmias (15.0%; 95% CI, 8.1%-21.7%), viral pneumonia (13.3%; 95% CI, 6.5%-20.1%), and respiratory failure (10.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-15.3%). Few children were treated with COVID-19-directed medications. Conclusions and Relevance: This study of EHRs of children and youth hospitalized for COVID-19 in 6 countries demonstrated variability in hospitalization trends across countries and identified common complications and laboratory abnormalities in children and youth with COVID-19 infection. Large-scale informatics-based approaches to integrate and analyze data across health care systems complement methods of disease surveillance and advance understanding of epidemiological and clinical features associated with COVID-19 in children and youth.

What Every Reader Should Know About Studies Using Electronic Health Record Data but May Be Afraid to Ask.

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.

Validation of an internationally derived patient severity phenotype to support COVID-19 analytics from electronic health record data.

OBJECTIVE: The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site. RESULTS: The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review. DISCUSSION: We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

International electronic health record-derived COVID-19 clinical course profiles: the 4CE consortium.

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

Close air support: enhancing emergency care in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm and overwhelmed healthcare institutions even in developed countries. In response, clinical staff and resources have been redeployed to the areas of greatest need, that is, intensive care units and emergency rooms (ER), to reinforce front-line manpower. We introduce the concept of close air support (CAS) to augment ER operations in an efficient, safe and scalable manner. Teams of five comprising two on-site junior ER physicians would be paired with two CAS doctors, who would be off-site but be in constant communication via teleconferencing to render real-time administrative support. They would be supervised by an ER attending. This reduces direct viral exposure to doctors, conserves precious personal protective equipment and allows ER physicians to focus on patient care. Medical students can also be involved in a safe and supervised manner. After 1 month, the average time to patient disposition was halved. General feedback was also positive. CAS improves efficiency and is safe, scalable and sustainable. It has also empowered a previously untapped group of junior clinicians to support front-line medical operations, while simultaneously protecting them from viral exposure. Institutions can consider adopting our novel approach, with modifications made according to their local context.