Safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in Children Aged 5 to 17 Years.

Importance: Active monitoring of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination offers early detection of rare outcomes that may not be identified in prelicensure trials. Objective: To conduct near-real-time monitoring of health outcomes following BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study was conducted under a public health surveillance mandate from the US Food and Drug Administration. Participants aged 5 to 17 years were included if they received BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination through mid 2022 and had continuous enrollment in a medical health insurance plan from the start of an outcome-specific clean window until the COVID-19 vaccination. Surveillance of 20 prespecified health outcomes was conducted in near real time within a cohort of vaccinated individuals from the earliest Emergency Use Authorization date for the BNT162b2 vaccination (December 11, 2020) and was expanded as more pediatric age groups received authorization through May and June 2022. All 20 health outcomes were monitored descriptively, 13 of which additionally underwent sequential testing. For these 13 health outcomes, the increased risk of each outcome after vaccination was compared with a historical baseline with adjustments for repeated looks at the data as well as a claims processing delay. A sequential testing approach was used, which declared a safety signal when the log likelihood ratio comparing the observed rate ratio against the null hypothesis exceeded a critical value. Exposure: Exposure was defined as receipt of a BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine dose. The primary analysis assessed primary series doses together (dose 1 + dose 2), and dose-specific secondary analyses were conducted. Follow-up time was censored for death, disenrollment, end of the outcome-specific risk window, end of the study period, or a receipt of a subsequent vaccine dose. Main Outcomes: Twenty prespecified health outcomes: 13 were assessed using sequential testing and 7 were monitored descriptively because of a lack of historical comparator data. Results: This study included 3 017 352 enrollees aged 5 to 17 years. Of the enrollees across all 3 databases, 1 510 817 (50.1%) were males, 1 506 499 (49.9%) were females, and 2 867 436 (95.0%) lived in an urban area. In the primary sequential analyses, a safety signal was observed only for myocarditis or pericarditis after primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 in the age group 12 to 17 years across all 3 databases. No safety signals were observed for the 12 other outcomes assessed using sequential testing. Conclusions and Relevance: Among 20 health outcomes that were monitored in near real time, a safety signal was identified for only myocarditis or pericarditis. Consistent with other published reports, these results provide additional evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in children.

Characterising the treatment of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination in 4 European countries and the US: An international network cohort study.

Background: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been identified as a rare adverse event following some COVID-19 vaccines. Various guidelines have been issued on the treatment of TTS. We aimed to characterize the treatment of TTS and other thromboembolic events (venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) after COVID-19 vaccination and compared to historical (pre-vaccination) data in Europe and the US. Methods: We conducted an international network cohort study using 8 primary care, outpatient, and inpatient databases from France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, The United Kingdom, and The United States. We investigated treatment pathways after the diagnosis of TTS, VTE, or ATE for a pre-vaccination (background) cohort (01/2017-11/2020), and a vaccinated cohort of people followed for 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine recorded from 12/2020 onwards). Results: Great variability was observed in the proportion of people treated (with any recommended therapy) across databases, both before and after vaccination. Most patients with TTS received heparins, platelet aggregation inhibitors, or direct Xa inhibitors. The majority of VTE patients (before and after vaccination) were first treated with heparins in inpatient settings and direct Xa inhibitors in outpatient settings. In ATE patients, treatments were also similar before and after vaccinations, with platelet aggregation inhibitors prescribed most frequently. Inpatient and claims data also showed substantial heparin use. Conclusion: TTS, VTE, and ATE after COVID-19 vaccination were treated similarly to background events. Heparin use post-vaccine TTS suggests most events were not identified as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia by the treating clinicians.

Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.

Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

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 .

Background rates of adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring in the United States, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) Initiative conducts active surveillance of adverse events of special interest (AESI) after COVID-19 vaccination. Historical incidence rates (IRs) of AESI are comparators to evaluate safety. METHODS: We estimated IRs of 17 AESI in six administrative claims databases from January 1, 2019, to December 11, 2020: Medicare claims for adults ≥ 65 years and commercial claims (Blue Health Intelligence®, CVS Health, HealthCore Integrated Research Database, IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database, Optum pre-adjudicated claims) for adults < 65 years. IRs were estimated by sex, age, race/ethnicity (Medicare), and nursing home residency (Medicare) in 2019 and for specific periods in 2020. RESULTS: The study included >100 million enrollees annually. In 2019, rates of most AESI increased with age. However, compared with commercially insured adults, Medicare enrollees had lower IRs of anaphylaxis (11 vs 12-19 per 100,000 person-years), appendicitis (80 vs 117-155), and narcolepsy (38 vs 41-53). Rates were higher in males than females for most AESI across databases and varied by race/ethnicity and nursing home status (Medicare). Acute myocardial infarction (Medicare) and anaphylaxis (all databases) IRs varied by season. IRs of most AESI were lower during March-May 2020 compared with March-May 2019 but returned to pre-pandemic levels after May 2020. However, rates of Bell's palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, narcolepsy, and hemorrhagic/non-hemorrhagic stroke remained lower in multiple databases after May 2020, whereas some AESI (e.g., disseminated intravascular coagulation) exhibited higher rates after May 2020 compared with 2019. CONCLUSION: AESI background rates varied by database and demographics and fluctuated in March-December 2020, but most returned to pre-pandemic levels after May 2020. It is critical to standardize demographics and consider seasonal and other trends when comparing historical rates with post-vaccination AESI rates in the same database to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalisation in Patients with Osteoarthritis or Back Pain Treated with Ibuprofen Compared to Other NSAIDs or Paracetamol: A Network Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether ibuprofen use, compared with other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) or paracetamol, increases the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis or hospitalisation. DESIGN: A prevalent user and active comparator cohort study. SETTING: Two US claims databases (Open Claims and PharMetrics Plus) mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. PARTICIPANTS: Insured patients with a history of osteoarthritis or back pain and receiving ibuprofen, other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol between 1 November, 2019 and 31 January, 2020 (study enrolment window 1) or between 1 February, 2020 and 31 October, 2020 (study enrolment window 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Large-scale propensity score matching and empirical calibration were used to minimise confounding. Incidence and hazard ratios of COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalisation according to drug/s use were estimated and pooled in the same study period across data sources using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Index treatment episode was the primary risk evaluation window, censored at the time of discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 633,562 and 1,063,960 participants were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively, for the ibuprofen versus ns-NSAIDs comparison, 311,669 and 524,470 for ibuprofen versus COX-2i, and 492,002 and 878,598 for ibuprofen versus paracetamol. Meta-analyses of empirically calibrated hazard ratios revealed no significantly differential risk of COVID-19 outcomes in users of ibuprofen versus any of the other studied analgesic classes: hazard ratios were 1.13 (0.96-1.33) for the ibuprofen-ns-NSAIDs comparison, 1.03 (0.83-1.28) for the ibuprofen-COX-2i comparison and 1.13 (0.74-1.73) for ibuprofen-paracetamol comparison on COVID-19 diagnosis in the February 2020-October 2020 window. Similar hazard ratios were found on COVID-19 hospitalisation and across both study periods. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, we found no differential risks of incident COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 hospitalisation for ibuprofen users compared with other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol. Our findings support regulatory recommendations that NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, should be prescribed as indicated in the same way as before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who rely on ibuprofen or NSAIDs to manage chronic arthritis or musculoskeletal pain symptoms.

Rates of Antipsychotic Drug Prescribing Among People Living With Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Concerns have been raised that the use of antipsychotic medication for people living with dementia might have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To examine multinational trends in antipsychotic drug prescribing for people living with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational network cohort study used electronic health records and claims data from 8 databases in 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US) for individuals aged 65 years or older between January 1, 2016, and November 30, 2021. Two databases each were included for South Korea and the US. Exposures: The introduction of population-wide COVID-19 restrictions from April 2020 to the latest available date of each database. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were yearly and monthly incidence of dementia diagnosis and prevalence of people living with dementia who were prescribed antipsychotic drugs in each database. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify changes in prescribing rates before and after the introduction of population-wide COVID-19 restrictions. Results: A total of 857 238 people with dementia aged 65 years or older (58.0% female) were identified in 2016. Reductions in the incidence of dementia were observed in 7 databases in the early phase of the pandemic (April, May, and June 2020), with the most pronounced reduction observed in 1 of the 2 US databases (rate ratio [RR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32); reductions were also observed in the total number of people with dementia prescribed antipsychotic drugs in France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, and the US. Rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing for people with dementia increased in 6 databases representing all countries. Compared with the corresponding month in 2019, the most pronounced increase in 2020 was observed in May in South Korea (Kangwon National University database) (RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-3.02) and June in the UK (RR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.09). The rates of antipsychotic drug prescribing in these 6 databases remained high in 2021. Interrupted time series analyses revealed immediate increases in the prescribing rate in Italy (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.58) and in the US Medicare database (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20-1.71) after the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found converging evidence that the rate of antipsychotic drug prescribing to people with dementia increased in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 6 countries studied and did not decrease to prepandemic levels after the acute phase of the pandemic had ended. These findings suggest that the pandemic disrupted the care of people living with dementia and that the development of intervention strategies is needed to ensure the quality of care.

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.

Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in the USA: a cohort study in claims databases.

BACKGROUND: Several passive surveillance systems reported increased risks of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, especially in young men. We used active surveillance from large health-care databases to quantify and enable the direct comparison of the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccinations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, examining the primary outcome of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, identified using the International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, occurring 1-7 days post-vaccination, evaluated in COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees aged 18-64 years using health plan claims databases in the USA. Observed (O) incidence rates were compared with expected (E) incidence rates estimated from historical cohorts by each database. We used multivariate Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rates, specific to each brand of vaccine, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2. We used meta-analyses to pool the adjusted incidence rates and IRRs across databases. FINDINGS: A total of 411 myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, events were observed among 15 148 369 people aged 18-64 years who received 16 912 716 doses of BNT162b2 and 10 631 554 doses of mRNA-1273. Among men aged 18-25 years, the pooled incidence rate was highest after the second dose, at 1·71 (95% CI 1·31 to 2·23) per 100 000 person-days for BNT162b2 and 2·17 (1·55 to 3·04) per 100 000 person-days for mRNA-1273. The pooled IRR in the head-to-head comparison of the two mRNA vaccines was 1·43 (95% CI 0·88 to 2·34), with an excess risk of 27·80 per million doses (-21·88 to 77·48) in mRNA-1273 recipients compared with BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: An increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis was observed after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and was highest in men aged 18-25 years after a second dose of the vaccine. However, the incidence was rare. These results do not indicate a statistically significant risk difference between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, but it should not be ruled out that a difference might exist. Our study results, along with the benefit-risk profile, continue to support vaccination using either of the two mRNA vaccines. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

Comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with different covid-19 vaccines: international network cohort study from five European countries and the US.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the comparative risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or thromboembolic events associated with use of adenovirus based covid-19 vaccines versus mRNA based covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: International network cohort study. SETTING: Routinely collected health data from contributing datasets in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the US. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) registered at any contributing database and who received at least one dose of a covid-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)), from December 2020 to mid-2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome or venous or arterial thromboembolic events within the 28 days after covid-19 vaccination. Incidence rate ratios were estimated after propensity scores matching and were calibrated using negative control outcomes. Estimates specific to the database were pooled by use of random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1 332 719 of 3 829 822 first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients were matched to 2 124 339 of 2 149 679 BNT162b2 recipients from Germany and the UK. Additionally, 762 517 of 772 678 people receiving Ad26.COV2.S were matched to 2 851 976 of 7 606 693 receiving BNT162b2 in Germany, Spain, and the US. All 628 164 Ad26.COV2.S recipients from the US were matched to 2 230 157 of 3 923 371 mRNA-1273 recipients. A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were observed in the matched first dose ChAdOx1-S recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of BNT162b2. Comparing ChAdOx1-S with a first dose of BNT162b2 revealed an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.50) and calibrated incidence rate difference of 1.18 (0.57 to 1.8) per 1000 person years). Additionally, a pooled calibrated incidence rate ratio of 2.26 (0.93 to 5.52) for venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome was seen with Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this multinational study, a pooled 30% increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine was observed, as was a trend towards an increased risk of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after Ad26.COV2.S compared with BNT162b2. Although rare, the observed risks after adenovirus based vaccines should be considered when planning further immunisation campaigns and future vaccine development.

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.

Near real-time surveillance of safety outcomes in US COVID-19 vaccine recipients aged 12 to 64 years.

BACKGROUND: Active monitoring of safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical to understand vaccine safety and can provide early detection of rare outcomes not identified in pre-licensure trials. We present findings from an early warning rapid surveillance system in three large commercial insurance databases including more than 16 million vaccinated individuals. METHODS: We evaluated 17 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination among individuals aged 12-64 years in Optum, HealthCore, and CVS Health databases from December 11, 2020, through January 22, 2022, January 7, 2022, and December 31, 2021, respectively. We conducted biweekly or monthly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination. FINDINGS: Among 17 outcomes evaluated, 15 did not meet the threshold for statistical signal in any of the three databases. Myocarditis/pericarditis met the statistical threshold for a signal following BNT162b2 in two of three databases (RRs: 1.83-2.47). Anaphylaxis met the statistical threshold for a signal in all three databases following BNT162b2 vaccination (RRs: 4.48-10.86) and mRNA-1273 vaccination (RRs: 7.64-12.40). DISCUSSION: Consistent with published literature, our near-real time monitoring of 17 adverse outcomes following COVID-19 vaccinations identified signals for myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. The method is intended for early detection of safety signals, and results do not imply a causal effect. Results of this study should be interpreted in the context of the method's utility and limitations, and the validity of detected signals must be evaluated in fully adjusted epidemiologic studies.

Unraveling COVID-19: A Large-Scale Characterization of 4.5 Million COVID-19 Cases Using CHARYBDIS.

Purpose: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD. Patients and Methods: We conducted a descriptive retrospective database 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. 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. Results: We aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed. Conclusion: We constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.

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.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of 627 044 COVID-19 patients living with and without obesity in the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status. RESULTS: We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity. CONCLUSION: We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies.

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.