Using the Data Quality Dashboard to Improve the EHDEN Network (preprint)

Background: Observational health data has the potential to be a rich resource to inform clinical practice and regulatory decision making. However, the lack of standard data quality processes makes it difficult to know if these data are research ready. The EHDEN COVID-19 Rapid Col-laboration Call presented the opportunity to assess how the newly developed open-source tool Data Quality Dashboard (DQD) informs the quality of data in a federated network. Methods: 15 Data Partners (DPs) from 10 different countries worked with the EHDEN taskforce to map their data to the OMOP CDM. Throughout the process at least two DQD results were collected and compared for each DP. Results: All DPs showed an improvement in their data quality between the first and last run of the DQD. The DQD excelled at helping DPs identify and fix conformance is-sues but showed less of an impact on completeness and plausibility checks. Conclusions: This is the first study to apply the DQD on multiple, disparate databases across a network. While study-specific checks should still be run, we recommend that all data holders converting their data to the OMOP CDM use the DQD as it ensures conformance to the model specifications and that a database meets a baseline level of completeness and plausibility for use in research.

Thromboembolic Events and Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia After COVID-19 Infection and Vaccination in Catalonia, Spain (preprint)

Background: Thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia have emerged as potential adverse events associated with vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. We compared rates of thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia following vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 with expected rates. Rates for people with COVID-19 were estimated to provide context. Methods: Primary care data from Catalonia, Spain, informed the analysis. Study participants were vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-19/05/2021), diagnosed with COVID-19 (1/09/2020-1/03/2021) or present as of 1/01/2017. Outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), thrombocytopenia, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). Incidence rates were estimated in the 21 and 90 days after vaccination and COVID-19 diagnosis, respectively, and up to 31/03/2019 for background rates. Age indirectly standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated. Findings: We included 945,941 BNT162b2 (778,534 with 2 doses), 426,272 ChAdOx1, 222,710 COVID-19, and 4,570,149 background participants. SIRs for VTE were 1.29 [95% CI 1.13-1.48] and 0.90 [0.76-1.07] after first- and second-dose BNT162b2, and 1.15 [0.83-1.58] after first-dose ChAdOx1. The SIR for VTE in COVID-19 was 8.04 [7.37-8.78]. SIRs for thrombocytopenia were 1.35 (1.30-1.41) and 1.19 (1.14-1.25) after first- and second-dose BNT162b2, 1.03 (0.93-1.14) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 3.52 (3.39 to 3.67) for COVID-19. Rates of ATE were similar to expected rates for BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, as were rates of TTS for BNT162b2, while fewer than 5 such events were seen for ChAdOx1. Interpretation: Safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 were similar. A safety signal was seen for VTE after first-dose of BNT162b2. Although confidence intervals were wider, a similar estimate was seen for first-dose of ChAdOx1. The 1.3 fold increase in the rate of VTE after first-dose of BNT162b2 compared with an 8 fold increase after diagnosis of COVID-19. No safety signals were seen for ATE or TTS. Further research is needed to investigate the causality in the observed associations. Funding Information: This study was funded by the European Medicines Agency in the form of a competitive tender (Lot ROC No EMA/2017/09/PE). Declaration of Interests: DPA’s research group has received research grants from the European Medicines Agency, from the Innovative Medicines Initiative, from Amgen, Chiesi, and from UCB Biopharma; and consultancy or speaker fees from Astellas, Amgen and UCB Biopharma. Peter Rijnbeek works for a research institute who receives/received unconditional research grants from Yamanouchi, Pfizer-Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Amgen, UCB, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi, Janssen Research and Development, none of which relate to the content of this work. Katia Verhamme works for a research institute who receives/received unconditional research grants from Yamanouchi, Pfizer-Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Amgen, UCB, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi, none of which relate to the content of this work .All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (project code: 21/054-PCV).

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

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

Characterizing the incidence of adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines across eight countries: a multinational network cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundAs large-scale immunization programs against COVID-19 proceed around the world, safety signals will emerge that need rapid evaluation. We report population-based, age- and sex- specific background incidence rates of potential adverse events of special interest (AESI) in eight countries using thirteen databases. MethodsThis multi-national network cohort study included eight electronic medical record and five administrative claims databases from Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, mapped to a common data model. People observed for at least 365 days before 1 January 2017, 2018, or 2019 were included. We based study outcomes on lists published by regulators: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bells palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, and transverse myelitis. We calculated incidence rates stratified by age, sex, and database. We pooled rates across databases using random effects meta-analyses. We classified meta-analytic estimates into Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences categories: very common, common, uncommon, rare, or very rare. FindingsWe analysed 126,661,070 people. Rates varied greatly between databases and by age and sex. Some AESI (e.g., myocardial infarction, Guillain-Barre syndrome) increased with age, while others (e.g., anaphylaxis, appendicitis) were more common in young people. As a result, AESI were classified differently according to age. For example, myocardial infarction was very rare in children, rare in women aged 35-54 years, uncommon in men and women aged 55-84 years, and common in those aged [≥]85 years. InterpretationWe report robust baseline rates of prioritised AESI across 13 databases. Age, sex, and variation between databases should be considered if background AESI rates are compared to event rates observed with COVID-19 vaccines.

A standardized analytics pipeline for reliable and rapid development and validation of prediction models using observational health data (preprint)

Background and Objective As a response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several prediction models have been rapidly developed, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance. However, no COVID-19 prediction model in the existing literature has been found to be reliable. Models are commonly assessed to have a risk of bias, often due to insufficient reporting, use of non-representative data, and lack of large-scale external validation. In this paper, we present the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction as a standardized approach for rapid yet reliable development and validation of prediction models. We demonstrate how our analytics pipeline and open-source software can be used to answer important prediction questions while limiting potential causes of bias (e.g., by validating phenotypes, specifying the target population, performing large-scale external validation and publicly providing all analytical source code). Methods We show step-by-step how to implement the pipeline for the question: ‘In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, what is the risk of death 0 to 30 days after hospitalization’. We develop models using six different machine learning methods in a US claims database containing over 20,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and externally validate the models using data containing over 45,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations from South Korea, Spain, and the US. Results Our open-source tools enabled us to efficiently go end-to-end from problem design to reliable model development and evaluation. When predicting death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 adaBoost, random forest, gradient boosting machine, and decision tree yielded similar or lower internal and external validation discrimination performance compared to L1-regularized logistic regression, whereas the MLP neural network consistently resulted in lower discrimination. L1-regularized logistic regression models were well calibrated. Conclusion Our results show that following the OHDSI analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction can enable the rapid development towards reliable prediction models. The OHDSI tools and pipeline are open source and available to researchers around the world.

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

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

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

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

Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

The efficacy of virus-specific T cells in clearing pathogens involves a fine balance between their antiviral and inflammatory features. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in individuals who clear SARS-CoV-2 infection without symptoms or disease could reveal non-pathological yet protective characteristics. We therefore compared the quantity and function of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals (n=85) with that of symptomatic COVID-19 patients (n=76), at different time points after antibody seroconversion. We quantified T cells reactive to structural proteins (M, NP and Spike) using ELISpot assays, and measured the magnitude of cytokine secretion (IL-2, IFN-{gamma}, IL-4, IL-6, IL-1{beta}, TNF- and IL-10) in whole blood following T cell activation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools as a functional readout. Frequencies of T cells specific for the different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the early phases of recovery were similar between asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. However, we detected an increased IFN-{gamma} and IL-2 production in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals after activation of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in blood. This was associated with a proportional secretion of IL-10 and pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF- and IL-1{beta}) only in asymptomatic infection, while a disproportionate secretion of inflammatory cytokines was triggered by SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell activation in symptomatic individuals. Thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals are not characterized by a weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a robust and highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response. Their ability to induce a proportionate production of IL-10 might help to reduce inflammatory events during viral clearance.

Unheeded SARS-CoV-2 protein? Look deep into negative-sense RNA (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel ssRNA+ virus from the Coronaviridae family, which has caused the global COVID-19 pandemic. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 is one of the largest of RNA viruses, comprising of 26 known protein-coding loci. This study aimed to explore the coding potential of negative-strand RNA intermediate for its potential to contain additional protein coding-loci. Surprisingly, we have found several putative ORFs and one brandt new functional SARS-CoV-2 protein-coding loci and called it Avo1 (Ambient viral ORF1). This sequence is located on negative-sense RNA intermediate and bona fide coding for 81 amino acid residues long protein and contains strong Kozak sequence for translation on eukaryotic ribosomes. In silico translated protein Avo1 has a predominantly alpha-helical structure. The existence of Avo1 gene is supported also by its evolutionarily and structural conservation in RaTG13 bat coronavirus. The nucleotide sequence of Avo1 also contains a unique SREBP2 binding site which is closely related to the so-called cytokine storm in severe COVID-19 patients. Altogether, our results suggest the existence of still undescribed SARS-CoV-2 protein, which may play an important role in the viral lifecycle and COVID-19 pathogenesis.

A Novel Cell Therapy for COVID-19 and Potential Future Pandemics: Virus Induced Lymphocytes (VIL) (preprint)

The a priori T cell repertoire and immune response against SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens may explain the varying clinical course and prognosis of patients having a mild COVID-19 infection as opposed to those developing more fulminant multisystem organ failure and associated mortality. Using a novel SARS-Cov-2-specific artificial antigen presenting cell (aAPC), coupled with a rapid expansion protocol (REP) as practiced in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) therapy, we generate an immune catalytic quantity of Virus Induced Lymphocytes (VIL). Using T cell receptor (TCR)-specific aAPCs carrying co-stimulatory molecules and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class-I immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 peptide-pentamer complexes, we expand virus-specific VIL derived from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of convalescent COVID-19 patients up to 1,000-fold. This is achieved in a clinically relevant 7-day vein-to-vein time-course as a potential adoptive cell therapy (ACT) for COVID-19. We also evaluate this approach for other viral pathogens using Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific VIL from donors as a control. Rapidly expanded VIL are enriched in virus antigen-specificity and show an activated, polyfunctional cytokine profile and T effector memory phenotype which may contribute to a robust immune response. Virus-specific T cells can also be delivered allogeneically via MHC-typing and patient human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matching to provide pragmatic treatment in a large-scale therapeutic setting. These data suggest that VIL may represent a novel therapeutic option that warrants further clinical investigation in the armamentarium against COVID-19 and other possible future pandemics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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