Anakinra or high-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 pneumonia patients who deteriorate on low-dose dexamethasone: An observational study of comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether escalating to high-dose corticosteroids or anakinra compared to continuing low-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) whose respiratory function deteriorated while receiving dexamethasone 6mg daily (DEXA6). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 3/1-12/31/2020 of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. In-hospital death was analyzed using logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving anakinra, high-dose corticosteroid (dexamethasone >10mg daily) or remaining on low-dose corticosteroids on the day of first respiratory deterioration. RESULTS: We analyzed 6,671 patients whose respiratory status deteriorated while receiving DEXA6 for COVID-19 pneumonia, of whom 6265 stayed on low-dose corticosteroids, 232 were escalated to high-dose corticosteroids and 174 to anakinra in addition to corticosteroids. The propensity score-adjusted odds of death were higher in the anakinra (odds ratio [OR]=1.76, 95% CI=1.13-2.72) and high-dose corticosteroid groups (OR=1.53, 95% CI=1.14-2.07) compared with those who continued low-dose corticosteroids on the day of respiratory deterioration. The odds of hospital-acquired infections were also higher in the anakinra (OR=2.00, 95% CI=1.28-3.11) and high-dose corticosteroid groups (OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.00-2.04) compared with low-dose corticosteroid group. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support escalating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who deteriorate on low-dose corticosteroids to high-dose corticosteroids or anakinra.

The intensity of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An observational, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The question of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unresolved, with randomized trials showing mixed results and heterogeneity of treatment effects for in-hospital death. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the intensity of anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and respiratory impairment who were hospitalized between 3/1/2020-12/31/2020 in two Kaiser Permanente regions. EXPOSURE AND MAIN OUTCOME: We fit propensity score models using categorical regression to estimate the probability of receiving standard prophylactic, intermediate, or full-dose anticoagulation beginning on the day of admission or on the day of first respiratory deterioration. Exposure was defined by the highest dose on the day of admission or within 24 hours after deterioration. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 17,130 patients in the day of admission analysis and 4,924 patients who experienced respiratory deterioration. There were no differences in propensity score-adjusted odds of in-hospital death for patients who received either intermediate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.89-1.12) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17) compared with standard prophylaxis beginning on the day of admission. Similarly, there were no differences in in-hospital death for either intermediate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.82) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.90-2.51) compared with standard prophylaxis on the day of deterioration. CONCLUSION: Results of this real-world, comparative effectiveness study showed no differences in in-hospital death among newly admitted or deteriorating patients with COVID-19 who received intermediate-dose or full anticoagulation compared with standard prophylaxis.

A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The safety of COVID-19 vaccines plays an important role in addressing vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a large cohort study to evaluate the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality after COVID-19 vaccination while adjusting for confounders including individual-level demographics, clinical risk factors, health care utilization, and community-level socioeconomic risk factors. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study consisted of members from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from December 14, 2020 through August 31, 2021. We conducted three separate analyses for each of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US. Crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates were reported by vaccine type, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The counting process model for survival analyses was used to analyze non-COVID-19 mortality where a new observation period began when the vaccination status changed upon receipt of the first dose and the second dose. We used calendar time as the basic time scale in survival analyses to implicitly adjust for season and other temporal trend factors. A propensity score approach was used to adjust for the potential imbalance in confounders between the vaccinated and comparison groups. RESULTS: For each vaccine type and across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates among COVID-19 vaccinees were lower than those among comparators. After adjusting for confounders with the propensity score approach, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.49) after dose 1 and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.46-0.50) after dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.37-0.40) after dose 2 of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.59) after receipt of Ad26.COV2.S. CONCLUSION: While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.

A broad assessment of covid-19 vaccine safety using tree-based data-mining in the vaccine safety datalink.

BACKGROUND: Except for spontaneous reporting systems, vaccine safety monitoring generally involves pre-specifying health outcomes and post-vaccination risk windows of concern. Instead, we used tree-based data-mining to look more broadly for possible adverse events after Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Vaccine Safety Datalink enrollees receiving ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine in 2020-2021 were followed for 70 days after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna and 56 days after Janssen vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the post-vaccination follow-up period. We used the self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic and TreeScan software. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate p-values; p = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance of a cluster. RESULTS: There were 4.1, 2.6, and 0.4 million Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccinees, respectively. Clusters after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination included: (1) unspecified adverse effects, (2) common vaccine reactions, such as fever, myalgia, and headache, (3) myocarditis/pericarditis, and (4) less specific cardiac or respiratory symptoms, all with the strongest clusters generally after Dose 2; and (5) COVID-19/viral pneumonia/sepsis/respiratory failure in the first 3 weeks after Dose 1. Moderna results were similar but without a significant myocarditis/pericarditis cluster. Further investigation suggested the fifth signal group was a manifestation of mRNA vaccine effectiveness after the first 3 weeks. Janssen vaccinees had clusters of unspecified or common vaccine reactions, gait/mobility abnormalities, and muscle weakness. The latter two were deemed to have arisen from confounding related to practices at one site. CONCLUSIONS: We detected post-vaccination clusters of unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine reactions, and, for the mRNA vaccines, chest pain and palpitations, as well as myocarditis/pericarditis after Pfizer-BioNTech Dose 2. Unique advantages of this data mining are its untargeted nature and its inherent adjustment for the multiplicity of diagnoses and risk intervals scanned.

Tree-based data mining for safety assessment of first COVID-19 booster doses in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) has been performing safety surveillance for COVID-19 vaccines since their earliest authorization in the United States. Complementing its real-time surveillance for pre-specified health outcomes using pre-specified risk intervals, the VSD conducts tree-based data-mining to look for clustering of a broad range of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination. This study's objective was to use this untargeted, hypothesis-generating approach to assess the safety of first booster doses of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: VSD enrollees receiving a first booster of COVID-19 vaccine through April 2, 2022 were followed for 56 days. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within both the hierarchical ICD-10-CM code structure and the follow-up period. The self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on the total number of cases for each diagnosis. P-values were estimated by Monte Carlo simulation; p = 0.01 was pre-specified as the cut-off for statistical significance of clusters. RESULTS: More than 2.4 and 1.8 million subjects received Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna boosters after an mRNA primary series, respectively. Clusters of urticaria/allergy/rash were found during Days 10-15 after the Moderna booster (p = 0.0001). Other outcomes that clustered after mRNA boosters, mostly with p = 0.0001, included unspecified adverse effects, common vaccine-associated reactions like fever and myalgia, and COVID-19. COVID-19 clusters were in Days 1-10 after booster receipt, before boosters would have become effective. There were no noteworthy clusters after boosters following primary Janssen vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: In this untargeted data-mining study of COVID-19 booster vaccination, a cluster of delayed-onset urticaria/allergy/rash was detected after the Moderna booster, as has been reported after Moderna vaccination previously. Other clusters after mRNA boosters were of unspecified or common adverse effects and COVID-19, the latter evidently reflecting immunity to COVID-19 after 10 days.

High-dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: an observational study of comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether high- compared with low-dose corticosteroids started upon hospitalization reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia or in subgroups stratified by severity of respiratory impairment on admission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required oxygen supplementation upon hospitalization between March 1 and December 31, 2020. In-hospital death was analyzed using logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving low- or high-dose corticosteroid (dexamethasone 6-10 mg daily or >10-20 mg daily or other corticosteroid equivalents). RESULTS: We analyzed 13,366 patients who received low-dose and 948 who received high-dose corticosteroids, of whom 31.3% and 40.4% had severe respiratory impairment (>15 l/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation) upon admission, respectively. There were no differences in the propensity score-adjusted odds of death (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 0.72-1.90) or infections (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.44-1.11) for patients who received high-dose compared with low-dose corticosteroids, beginning on the day of admission. No significant differences in subgroups stratified by severity of respiratory impairment were found. CONCLUSION: Initiating high-dose compared with low-dose corticosteroids among newly hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia did not improve survival. However, benefit of high-dose corticosteroids in specific subgroups cannot be excluded.

Changes in incidence rates of outcomes of interest in vaccine safety studies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused an abrupt drop in in-person health care (inpatient, Emergency Department, outpatient) and an increase in telehealth care, which poses challenges in vaccine safety studies that identify outcomes from in-person encounters. We examined the changes in incidence rates of selected encounter-based outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of members from 8 Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes or laboratory criteria, we identified 21 incident outcomes in traditional in-person settings and all settings. We defined 4 periods in 2020: January-February (pre-pandemic), April-June (early pandemic), July-September (middle pandemic), and October-December (late pandemic). We defined four corresponding periods in each year during 2017-2019. We calculated incidence rates, conducted difference in difference (DiD) analyses, and reported ratios of incidence rate ratios (RRR) to examine changes in rates from pre-pandemic to early, middle, and late pandemic in 2020, after adjusting for changes across similar periods in 2017-2019. RESULTS: Among > 10 million members, regardless of setting and after adjusting for changes during 2017-2019, we found that incidence rates of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/meningoencephalitis, and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura did not significantly change from the pre-pandemic to early, middle or late pandemic periods (p-values ≥ 0.05). Incidence rates decreased from the pre-pandemic to early pandemic period during 2020 for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, convulsions/seizures, Guillain-Barré syndrome, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), narcolepsy/cataplexy, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and venous thromboembolism (p-values < 0.05). Incidence rates of Bell's palsy, ITP, and narcolepsy/cataplexy were higher in all settings than in traditional in-person settings during the three pandemic periods (p-values < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Rates of some clinical outcomes during the pandemic changed and should not be used as historical background rates in vaccine safety studies. Inclusion of telehealth visits should be considered for vaccine studies involving Bell's palsy, ITP, and narcolepsy/cataplexy.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Non-COVID-19 Mortality Risk - Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020-July 31, 2021.

By September 21, 2021, an estimated 182 million persons in the United States were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.* Clinical trials indicate that Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson; Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccines are effective and generally well tolerated (1-3). However, daily vaccination rates have declined approximately 78% since April 13, 2021†; vaccine safety concerns have contributed to vaccine hesitancy (4). A cohort study of 19,625 nursing home residents found that those who received an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) had lower all-cause mortality than did unvaccinated residents (5), but no studies comparing mortality rates within the general population of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons have been conducted. To assess mortality not associated with COVID-19 (non-COVID-19 mortality) after COVID-19 vaccination in a general population setting, a cohort study was conducted during December 2020-July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites.§ After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and VSD site, this study found that adjusted relative risk (aRR) of non-COVID-19 mortality for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33-0.36) after dose 2. The aRRs of non-COVID-19 mortality for the Moderna vaccine were 0.34 (95% CI = 0.32-0.37) after dose 1 and 0.31 (95% CI = 0.30-0.33) after dose 2. The aRR after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49-0.59). There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

Disparities in Outpatient and Telehealth Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Large Integrated Health Care Organization: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Dramatic decreases in outpatient visits and sudden increases in telehealth visits were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was unclear whether these changes differed by patient demographics and socioeconomic status. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on in-person outpatient and telehealth visits (telephone and video) by demographic characteristics and household income in a diverse population. METHODS: We calculated weekly rates of outpatient and telehealth visits by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and neighborhood-level median household income among members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) from January 5, 2020, to October 31, 2020, and the corresponding period in 2019. We estimated the percentage change in visit rates during the early pandemic period (March 22 to April 25, 2020) and the late pandemic period (October 4 to October 31, 2020) from the prepandemic period (January 5 to March 7, 2020) in Poisson regression models for each subgroup while adjusting for seasonality using 2019 data. We examined if the changes in visit rates differed by subgroups statistically by comparing their 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among 4.56 million KPSC members enrolled in January 2020, 15.0% (n=682,947) were ≥65 years old, 51.5% (n=2,345,020) were female, 39.4% (n=1,795,994) were Hispanic, and 7.7% (n=350,721) lived in an area of median household income

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Utilization in a Large Integrated Health Care System: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an abrupt reduction in the use of in-person health care, accompanied by a corresponding surge in the use of telehealth services. However, the extent and nature of changes in health care utilization during the pandemic may differ by care setting. Knowledge of the impact of the pandemic on health care utilization is important to health care organizations and policy makers. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are (1) to evaluate changes in in-person health care utilization and telehealth visits during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) to assess the difference in changes in health care utilization between the pandemic year 2020 and the prepandemic year 2019. METHODS: We retrospectively assembled a cohort consisting of members of a large integrated health care organization, who were enrolled between January 6 and November 2, 2019 (prepandemic year), and between January 5 and October 31, 2020 (pandemic year). The rates of visits were calculated weekly for four settings: inpatient, emergency department (ED), outpatient, and telehealth. Using Poisson models, we assessed the impact of the pandemic on health care utilization during the early days of the pandemic and conducted difference-in-deference (DID) analyses to measure the changes in health care utilization, adjusting for the trend of health care utilization in the prepandemic year. RESULTS: In the early days of the pandemic, we observed significant reductions in inpatient, ED, and outpatient utilization (by 30.2%, 37.0%, and 80.9%, respectively). By contrast, there was a 4-fold increase in telehealth visits between weeks 8 (February 23) and 12 (March 22) in 2020. DID analyses revealed that after adjusting for prepandemic secular trends, the reductions in inpatient, ED, and outpatient visit rates in the early days of the pandemic were 1.6, 8.9, and 367.2 visits per 100 person-years (P<.001), respectively, while the increase in telehealth visits was 272.9 visits per 100 person-years (P<.001). Further analyses suggested that the increase in telehealth visits offset the reduction in outpatient visits by week 26 (June 28, 2020). CONCLUSIONS: In-person health care utilization decreased drastically during the early period of the pandemic, but there was a corresponding increase in telehealth visits during the same period. By end-June 2020, the combined outpatient and telehealth visits had recovered to prepandemic levels.

Correction: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Utilization in a Large Integrated Health Care System: Retrospective Cohort Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/26558.].