Severity of COVID-19-Related Illness in Massachusetts, July 2021 to December 2022.

This cohort study uses hospitalization and 30-day mortality risks to create a temporal profile of the severity of COVID-19 in Massachusetts from July 2021 to December 2022.

Informative missingness: What can we learn from patterns in missing laboratory data in the electronic health record?

BACKGROUND: In electronic health records, patterns of missing laboratory test results could capture patients' course of disease as well as ​​reflect clinician's concerns or worries for possible conditions. These patterns are often understudied and overlooked. This study aims to identify informative patterns of missingness among laboratory data collected across 15 healthcare system sites in three countries for COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: We collected and analyzed demographic, diagnosis, and laboratory data for 69,939 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR tests across three countries from 1 January 2020 through 30 September 2021. We analyzed missing laboratory measurements across sites, missingness stratification by demographic variables, temporal trends of missingness, correlations between labs based on missingness indicators over time, and clustering of groups of labs based on their missingness/ordering pattern. RESULTS: With these analyses, we identified mapping issues faced in seven out of 15 sites. We also identified nuances in data collection and variable definition for the various sites. Temporal trend analyses may support the use of laboratory test result missingness patterns in identifying severe COVID-19 patients. Lastly, using missingness patterns, we determined relationships between various labs that reflect clinical behaviors. CONCLUSION: In this work, we use computational approaches to relate missingness patterns to hospital treatment capacity and highlight the heterogeneity of looking at COVID-19 over time and at multiple sites, where there might be different phases, policies, etc. Changes in missingness could suggest a change in a patient's condition, and patterns of missingness among laboratory measurements could potentially identify clinical outcomes. This allows sites to consider missing data as informative to analyses and help researchers identify which sites are better poised to study particular questions.

Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 Subvariant Severity in New England.

Importance: The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant, BA.2, may be less severe than previous variants; however, confounding factors make interpreting the intrinsic severity challenging. Objective: To compare the adjusted risks of mortality, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and invasive ventilation between the BA.2 subvariant and the Omicron and Delta variants, after accounting for multiple confounders. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study that applied an entropy balancing approach. Patients in a multicenter inpatient and outpatient system in New England with COVID-19 between March 3, 2020, and June 20, 2022, were identified. Exposures: Cases were assigned as being exposed to the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant, the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, or the Omicron BA.2 lineage subvariants. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome planned before analysis was risk of 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the risks of hospitalization, invasive ventilation, and intensive care unit admissions. Results: Of 102 315 confirmed COVID-19 cases (mean [SD] age, 44.2 [21.6] years; 63 482 women [62.0%]), 20 770 were labeled as Delta variants, 52 605 were labeled as the Omicron B.1.1.529 variant, and 28 940 were labeled as Omicron BA.2 subvariants. Patient cases were excluded if they occurred outside the prespecified temporal windows associated with the variants or had minimal longitudinal data in the Mass General Brigham system before COVID-19. Mortality rates were 0.7% for Delta (B.1.617.2), 0.4% for Omicron (B.1.1.529), and 0.3% for Omicron (BA.2). The adjusted odds ratio of mortality from the Delta variant compared with the Omicron BA.2 subvariants was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.04-4.10) and that of the original Omicron variant compared with the Omicron BA.2 subvariant was 2.20 (95% CI, 1.56-3.11). For all outcomes, the Omicron BA.2 subvariants were significantly less severe than that of the Omicron and Delta variants. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, after having accounted for a variety of confounding factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, the Omicron BA.2 subvariant was found to be intrinsically less severe than both the Delta and Omicron variants. With respect to these variants, the severity profile of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be diminishing after taking into account various factors including therapeutics, vaccinations, and prior infections.

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

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

Distinguishing Admissions Specifically for COVID-19 From Incidental SARS-CoV-2 Admissions: National Retrospective Electronic Health Record Study.

BACKGROUND: Admissions are generally classified as COVID-19 hospitalizations if the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. However, because 35% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, patients admitted for unrelated indications with an incidentally positive test could be misclassified as a COVID-19 hospitalization. Electronic health record (EHR)-based studies have been unable to distinguish between a hospitalization specifically for COVID-19 versus an incidental SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. Although the need to improve classification of COVID-19 versus incidental SARS-CoV-2 is well understood, the magnitude of the problems has only been characterized in small, single-center studies. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed studies evaluating methods for improving classification. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to, first, quantify the frequency of incidental hospitalizations over the first 15 months of the pandemic in multiple hospital systems in the United States and, second, to apply electronic phenotyping techniques to automatically improve COVID-19 hospitalization classification. METHODS: From a retrospective EHR-based cohort in 4 US health care systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, a random sample of 1123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized from March 2020 to August 2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as "admitted with COVID-19" (incidental) versus specifically admitted for COVID-19 ("for COVID-19"). EHR-based phenotyping was used to find feature sets to filter out incidental admissions. RESULTS: EHR-based phenotyped feature sets filtered out incidental admissions, which occurred in an average of 26% of hospitalizations (although this varied widely over time, from 0% to 75%). The top site-specific feature sets had 79%-99% specificity with 62%-75% sensitivity, while the best-performing across-site feature sets had 71%-94% specificity with 69%-81% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive admissions were incidental. Straightforward EHR-based phenotypes differentiated admissions, which is important to assure accurate public health reporting and research.

An objective framework for evaluating unrecognized bias in medical AI models predicting COVID-19 outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The increasing translation of artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) models into clinical practice brings an increased risk of direct harm from modeling bias; however, bias remains incompletely measured in many medical AI applications. This article aims to provide a framework for objective evaluation of medical AI from multiple aspects, focusing on binary classification models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from over 56 000 Mass General Brigham (MGB) patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we evaluate unrecognized bias in 4 AI models developed during the early months of the pandemic in Boston, Massachusetts that predict risks of hospital admission, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death after a SARS-CoV-2 infection purely based on their pre-infection longitudinal medical records. Models were evaluated both retrospectively and prospectively using model-level metrics of discrimination, accuracy, and reliability, and a novel individual-level metric for error. RESULTS: We found inconsistent instances of model-level bias in the prediction models. From an individual-level aspect, however, we found most all models performing with slightly higher error rates for older patients. DISCUSSION: While a model can be biased against certain protected groups (ie, perform worse) in certain tasks, it can be at the same time biased towards another protected group (ie, perform better). As such, current bias evaluation studies may lack a full depiction of the variable effects of a model on its subpopulations. CONCLUSION: Only a holistic evaluation, a diligent search for unrecognized bias, can provide enough information for an unbiased judgment of AI bias that can invigorate follow-up investigations on identifying the underlying roots of bias and ultimately make a change.

Evolving phenotypes of non-hospitalized patients that indicate long COVID.

BACKGROUND: For some SARS-CoV-2 survivors, recovery from the acute phase of the infection has been grueling with lingering effects. Many of the symptoms characterized as the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) could have multiple causes or are similarly seen in non-COVID patients. Accurate identification of PASC phenotypes will be important to guide future research and help the healthcare system focus its efforts and resources on adequately controlled age- and gender-specific sequelae of a COVID-19 infection. METHODS: In this retrospective electronic health record (EHR) cohort study, we applied a computational framework for knowledge discovery from clinical data, MLHO, to identify phenotypes that positively associate with a past positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19. We evaluated the post-test phenotypes in two temporal windows at 3-6 and 6-9 months after the test and by age and gender. Data from longitudinal diagnosis records stored in EHRs from Mass General Brigham in the Boston Metropolitan Area was used for the analyses. Statistical analyses were performed on data from March 2020 to June 2021. Study participants included over 96 thousand patients who had tested positive or negative for COVID-19 and were not hospitalized. RESULTS: We identified 33 phenotypes among different age/gender cohorts or time windows that were positively associated with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. All identified phenotypes were newly recorded in patients' medical records 2 months or longer after a COVID-19 RT-PCR test in non-hospitalized patients regardless of the test result. Among these phenotypes, a new diagnosis record for anosmia and dysgeusia (OR 2.60, 95% CI [1.94-3.46]), alopecia (OR 3.09, 95% CI [2.53-3.76]), chest pain (OR 1.27, 95% CI [1.09-1.48]), chronic fatigue syndrome (OR 2.60, 95% CI [1.22-2.10]), shortness of breath (OR 1.41, 95% CI [1.22-1.64]), pneumonia (OR 1.66, 95% CI [1.28-2.16]), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.41, 95% CI [1.22-1.64]) is one of the most significant indicators of a past COVID-19 infection. Additionally, more new phenotypes were found with increased confidence among the cohorts who were younger than 65. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study confirm many of the post-COVID-19 symptoms and suggest that a variety of new diagnoses, including new diabetes mellitus and neurological disorder diagnoses, are more common among those with a history of COVID-19 than those without the infection. Additionally, more than 63% of PASC phenotypes were observed in patients under 65 years of age, pointing out the importance of vaccination to minimize the risk of debilitating post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 among younger adults.

Individualized prediction of COVID-19 adverse outcomes with MLHO.

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the world with health and economic wreckage. Precise estimates of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 could have led to better allocation of healthcare resources and more efficient targeted preventive measures, including insight into prioritizing how to best distribute a vaccination. We developed MLHO (pronounced as melo), an end-to-end Machine Learning framework that leverages iterative feature and algorithm selection to predict Health Outcomes. MLHO implements iterative sequential representation mining, and feature and model selection, for predicting patient-level risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and death. It bases this prediction on data from patients' past medical records (before their COVID-19 infection). MLHO's architecture enables a parallel and outcome-oriented model calibration, in which different statistical learning algorithms and vectors of features are simultaneously tested to improve prediction of health outcomes. Using clinical and demographic data from a large cohort of over 13,000 COVID-19-positive patients, we modeled the four adverse outcomes utilizing about 600 features representing patients' pre-COVID health records and demographics. The mean AUC ROC for mortality prediction was 0.91, while the prediction performance ranged between 0.80 and 0.81 for the ICU, hospitalization, and ventilation. We broadly describe the clusters of features that were utilized in modeling and their relative influence for predicting each outcome. Our results demonstrated that while demographic variables (namely age) are important predictors of adverse outcomes after a COVID-19 infection, the incorporation of the past clinical records are vital for a reliable prediction model. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds around the world, adaptable and interpretable machine learning frameworks (like MLHO) are crucial to improve our readiness for confronting the potential future waves of COVID-19, as well as other novel infectious diseases that may emerge.

Predicting COVID-19 mortality with electronic medical records.

This study aims to predict death after COVID-19 using only the past medical information routinely collected in electronic health records (EHRs) and to understand the differences in risk factors across age groups. Combining computational methods and clinical expertise, we curated clusters that represent 46 clinical conditions as potential risk factors for death after a COVID-19 infection. We trained age-stratified generalized linear models (GLMs) with component-wise gradient boosting to predict the probability of death based on what we know from the patients before they contracted the virus. Despite only relying on previously documented demographics and comorbidities, our models demonstrated similar performance to other prognostic models that require an assortment of symptoms, laboratory values, and images at the time of diagnosis or during the course of the illness. In general, we found age as the most important predictor of mortality in COVID-19 patients. A history of pneumonia, which is rarely asked in typical epidemiology studies, was one of the most important risk factors for predicting COVID-19 mortality. A history of diabetes with complications and cancer (breast and prostate) were notable risk factors for patients between the ages of 45 and 65 years. In patients aged 65-85 years, diseases that affect the pulmonary system, including interstitial lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and a smoking history, were important for predicting mortality. The ability to compute precise individual-level risk scores exclusively based on the EHR is crucial for effectively allocating and distributing resources, such as prioritizing vaccination among the general population.