Data-driven analysis to understand long COVID using electronic health records from the RECOVER initiative.

Recent studies have investigated post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, or long COVID) using real-world patient data such as electronic health records (EHR). Prior studies have typically been conducted on patient cohorts with specific patient populations which makes their generalizability unclear. This study aims to characterize PASC using the EHR data warehouses from two large Patient-Centered Clinical Research Networks (PCORnet), INSIGHT and OneFlorida+, which include 11 million patients in New York City (NYC) area and 16.8 million patients in Florida respectively. With a high-throughput screening pipeline based on propensity score and inverse probability of treatment weighting, we identified a broad list of diagnoses and medications which exhibited significantly higher incidence risk for patients 30-180 days after the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to non-infected patients. We identified more PASC diagnoses in NYC than in Florida regarding our screening criteria, and conditions including dementia, hair loss, pressure ulcers, pulmonary fibrosis, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, chest pain, abnormal heartbeat, malaise, and fatigue, were replicated across both cohorts. Our analyses highlight potentially heterogeneous risks of PASC in different populations.

Training the next generation of learning health system scientists.

Introduction: The learning health system (LHS) aligns science, informatics, incentives, stakeholders, and culture for continuous improvement and innovation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute designed a K12 initiative to grow the number of LHS scientists. We describe approaches developed by 11 funded centers of excellence (COEs) to promote partnerships between scholars and health system leaders and to provide mentored research training. Methods: Since 2018, the COEs have enlisted faculty, secured institutional resources, partnered with health systems, developed and implemented curricula, recruited scholars, and provided mentored training. Program directors for each COE provided descriptive data on program context, scholar characteristics, stakeholder engagement, scholar experiences with health system partnerships, roles following program completion, and key training challenges. Results: To date, the 11 COEs have partnered with health systems to train 110 scholars. Nine (82%) programs partner with a Veterans Affairs health system and 9 (82%) partner with safety net providers. Clinically trained scholars (n = 87; 79%) include 70 physicians and 17 scholars in other clinical disciplines. Non-clinicians (n = 29; 26%) represent diverse fields, dominated by population health sciences. Stakeholder engagement helps scholars understand health system and patient/family needs and priorities, enabling opportunities to conduct embedded research, improve outcomes, and grow skills in translating research methods and findings into practice. Challenges include supporting scholars through roadblocks that threaten to derail projects during their limited program time, ranging from delays in access to data to COVID-19-related impediments and shifts in organizational priorities. Conclusions: Four years into this novel training program, there is evidence of scholars' accomplishments, both in traditional academic terms and in terms of moving along career trajectories that hold the potential to lead and accelerate transformational health system change. Future LHS training efforts should focus on sustainability, including organizational support for scholar activities.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Post-acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in New York: an EHR-Based Cohort Study from the RECOVER Program.

BACKGROUND: Compared to white individuals, Black and Hispanic individuals have higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. Less is known about racial/ethnic differences in post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). OBJECTIVE: Examine racial/ethnic differences in potential PASC symptoms and conditions among hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from electronic health records. PARTICIPANTS: 62,339 patients with COVID-19 and 247,881 patients without COVID-19 in New York City between March 2020 and October 2021. MAIN MEASURES: New symptoms and conditions 31-180 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. KEY RESULTS: The final study population included 29,331 white patients (47.1%), 12,638 Black patients (20.3%), and 20,370 Hispanic patients (32.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19. After adjusting for confounders, significant racial/ethnic differences in incident symptoms and conditions existed among both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. For example, 31-180 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospitalized Black patients had higher odds of being diagnosed with diabetes (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-2.56, q<0.001) and headaches (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.11-2.08, q=0.02), compared to hospitalized white patients. Hospitalized Hispanic patients had higher odds of headaches (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.21-2.17, q=0.003) and dyspnea (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.05-1.42, q=0.02), compared to hospitalized white patients. Among non-hospitalized patients, Black patients had higher odds of being diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.20-2.36, q=0.009) and diabetes (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.75-2.58, q<0.001), but lower odds of encephalopathy (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45-0.75, q<0.001), compared to white patients. Hispanic patients had higher odds of being diagnosed with headaches (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.24-1.60, q<0.001) and chest pain (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.35-1.67, q < 0.001), but lower odds of encephalopathy (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.80, q<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to white patients, patients from racial/ethnic minority groups had significantly different odds of developing potential PASC symptoms and conditions. Future research should examine the reasons for these differences.

Hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health care workers: a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine (HERO-HCQ).

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: In a 1: 1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial at 34 US clinical centers, 1360 HCWs at risk for COVID-19 infection were enrolled between April and November 2020. Participants were randomized to HCQ or matched placebo. The HCQ dosing included a loading dose of HCQ 600 mg twice on day 1, followed by 400 mg daily for 29 days. The primary outcome was a composite of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 clinical infection by day 30, defined as new-onset fever, cough, or dyspnea and either a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test (confirmed) or a lack of confirmatory testing due to local restrictions (suspected). RESULTS: Study enrollment closed before full accrual due to recruitment challenges. The primary end point occurred in 41 (6.0%) participants receiving HCQ and 53 (7.8%) participants receiving placebo. No difference in the proportion of participants experiencing clinical infection (estimated difference of -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -4.6-0.9%, P = 0.20) was identified nor any significant safety issues. CONCLUSION: Oral HCQ taken as prescribed appeared safe among HCWs. No significant clinical benefits were observed. The study was not powered to detect a small but potentially important reduction in infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04334148.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Identifying environmental risk factors for post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection: An EHR-based cohort study from the recover program.

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) affects a wide range of organ systems among a large proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although studies have identified a broad set of patient-level risk factors for PASC, little is known about the association between "exposome"-the totality of environmental exposures and the risk of PASC. Using electronic health data of patients with COVID-19 from two large clinical research networks in New York City and Florida, we identified environmental risk factors for 23 PASC symptoms and conditions from nearly 200 exposome factors. The three domains of exposome include natural environment, built environment, and social environment. We conducted a two-phase environment-wide association study. In Phase 1, we ran a mixed effects logistic regression with 5-digit ZIP Code tabulation area (ZCTA5) random intercepts for each PASC outcome and each exposome factor, adjusting for a comprehensive set of patient-level confounders. In Phase 2, we ran a mixed effects logistic regression for each PASC outcome including all significant (false positive discovery adjusted p-value < 0.05) exposome characteristics identified from Phase I and adjusting for confounders. We identified air toxicants (e.g., methyl methacrylate), particulate matter (PM2.5) compositions (e.g., ammonium), neighborhood deprivation, and built environment (e.g., food access) that were associated with increased risk of PASC conditions related to nervous, blood, circulatory, endocrine, and other organ systems. Specific environmental risk factors for each PASC condition and symptom were different across the New York City area and Florida. Future research is warranted to extend the analyses to other regions and examine more granular exposome characteristics to inform public health efforts to help patients recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data-driven identification of post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection subphenotypes.

The post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) refers to a broad spectrum of symptoms and signs that are persistent, exacerbated or newly incident in the period after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most studies have examined these conditions individually without providing evidence on co-occurring conditions. In this study, we leveraged the electronic health record data of two large cohorts, INSIGHT and OneFlorida+, from the national Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. We created a development cohort from INSIGHT and a validation cohort from OneFlorida+ including 20,881 and 13,724 patients, respectively, who were SARS-CoV-2 infected, and we investigated their newly incident diagnoses 30-180 days after a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Through machine learning analysis of over 137 symptoms and conditions, we identified four reproducible PASC subphenotypes, dominated by cardiac and renal (including 33.75% and 25.43% of the patients in the development and validation cohorts); respiratory, sleep and anxiety (32.75% and 38.48%); musculoskeletal and nervous system (23.37% and 23.35%); and digestive and respiratory system (10.14% and 12.74%) sequelae. These subphenotypes were associated with distinct patient demographics, underlying conditions before SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute infection phase severity. Our study provides insights into the heterogeneity of PASC and may inform stratified decision-making in the management of PASC conditions.

Parental Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Infant, Child, and Adolescent Development.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to understand how families from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds perceived the impact of the pandemic on the development of their children. METHODS: We used a multimethod approach guided by Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory, which identifies 5 developmental systems (micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono). Semistructured interviews were conducted in English or Spanish with parents living in 5 geographic regions of the United States between July and September 2021. Participants also completed the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey. RESULTS: Forty-eight families participated, half of whose preferred language was Spanish, with a total of 99 children ages newborn to 19 years. Most qualitative themes pertained to developmental effects of the microsystem and macrosystem. Although many families described negative effects of the pandemic on development, others described positive or no perceived effects. Some families reported inadequate government support in response to the pandemic as causes of stress and potential negative influences on child development. As context for their infant's development, families reported a variety of economic hardships on the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey, such as having to move out of their homes and experiencing decreased income. CONCLUSION: In addition to negative impacts, many parents perceived positive pandemic-attributed effects on their child's development, mainly from increased time for parent-child interaction. Families described economic hardships that were exacerbated by the pandemic and that potentially affect child development and insufficient government responses to these hardships. These findings hold important lessons for leaders who wish to design innovative solutions that address inequities in maternal, family, and child health.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among low-income, racially and ethnically diverse US parents.

OBJECTIVE: Examine factors impacting U.S. parents' intention to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. METHODS: Data were collected February-May 2021 from parents living in six geographically diverse locations. The COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey assessed perceived susceptibility and severity to adverse outcomes from the pandemic. Semi-structured interviews assessed perceptions about benefits and risks of vaccinating children. RESULTS: Fifty parents of 106 children (newborn-17 years) were included; half were Spanish-speaking and half English-speaking. 62% were hesitant about vaccinating their children against COVID-19. Efficacy and safety were the main themes that emerged: some parents perceived them as benefits while others perceived them as risks to vaccination. Parent hesitancy often relied on social media, and was influenced by narrative accounts of vaccination experiences. Many cited the lower risk of negative outcomes from COVID-19 among children, when compared with adults. Some also cited inaccurate and constantly changing information about COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: Main drivers of parent hesitancy regarding child COVID-19 vaccination include perceived safety and efficacy of the vaccines and lower severity of illness in children. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Many vaccine-hesitant parents may be open to vaccination in the future and welcome additional discussion and data.

How COVID-19 impacted child and family health and healthcare: a mixed-methods study incorporating family voices.

To describe how social disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic impacted child access to healthcare and child health behaviors in 2020. We used mixed-methods to conduct surveys and in-depth interviews with English- and Spanish-speaking parents of young children from five geographic regions in the USA. Participants completed the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey (CEFIS). Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted between August and October 2020. Of the 72 parents interviewed, 45.8% of participants were Hispanic, 20.8% Black (non-Hispanic), and 19.4% White (non-Hispanic). On the CEFIS, the average (SD) number of social/family disruptions reported was 10.5 (3.8) out of 25. Qualitative analysis revealed multiple levels of themes that influenced accessing healthcare during the pandemic, including two broad contextual themes: (a) lack of trustworthiness of medical system/governmental organizations, and (b) uncertainty due to lack of consistency across multiple sources of information. This context influenced two themes that shaped the social and emotional environments in which participants accessed healthcare: (a) fear and anxiety and (b) social isolation. However, the pandemic also had some positive impacts on families: over 80% indicated that the pandemic made it "a lot" or "a little" better to care for their new infants. Social and family disruptions due to COVID-19 were common. These disruptions contributed to social isolation and fear, and adversely impacted multiple aspects of child and family health and access to healthcare. Some parents of infants reported improvements in specific health domains such as parenting, possibly due to spending more time together.

Design of the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) research platform.

BACKGROUND: The SARS CoV-2 virus has caused one of the deadliest pandemics in recent history, resulting in over 170 million deaths and global economic disruption. There remains an urgent need for clinical trials to test therapies for treatment and prevention. DESIGN: An online research platform was created to support a registry community of healthcare workers (HCWs) to understand their experiences and conduct clinical studies to address their concerns. The first study, HERO-HCQ, was a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic trial to evaluate the superiority of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) vs placebo for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of COVID-19 clinical infection in HCWs. Secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of HCQ in preventing viral shedding of COVID-19 among HCWs and to assess the safety and tolerability of HCQ. METHODS: HCWs joined the Registry and were pre-screened for trial interest and eligibility. Trial participants were randomized 1:1 to receive HCQ or placebo. On-site baseline assessment included a COVID-19 nasopharyngeal PCR and blood serology test. Weekly follow-up was done via an online portal and included screening for symptoms of COVID-19, self-reported testing, adverse events, and quality of life assessments. The on-site visit was repeated at Day 30. DISCUSSION: The HERO research platform offers an approach to rapidly engage, screen, invite and enroll into clinical studies using a novel participant-facing online portal interface and remote data collection, enabling limited onsite procedures for conduct of a pragmatic clinical trial. This platform may be an example for future clinical trials of common conditions to enable more rapid evidence generation.