Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 38
Filter
1.
Drug Saf ; 45(6): 685-698, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1872804

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) has been identified as a rare but serious adverse event associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we explored the pre-pandemic co-occurrence of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TWT) using 17 observational health data sources across the world. We applied multiple TWT definitions, estimated the background rate of TWT, characterized TWT patients, and explored the makeup of thrombosis types among TWT patients. METHODS: We conducted an international network retrospective cohort study using electronic health records and insurance claims data, estimating background rates of TWT amongst persons observed from 2017 to 2019. Following the principles of existing VITT clinical definitions, TWT was defined as patients with a diagnosis of embolic or thrombotic arterial or venous events and a diagnosis or measurement of thrombocytopenia within 7 days. Six TWT phenotypes were considered, which varied in the approach taken in defining thrombosis and thrombocytopenia in real world data. RESULTS: Overall TWT incidence rates ranged from 1.62 to 150.65 per 100,000 person-years. Substantial heterogeneity exists across data sources and by age, sex, and alternative TWT phenotypes. TWT patients were likely to be men of older age with various comorbidities. Among the thrombosis types, arterial thrombotic events were the most common. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that identifying VITT in observational data presents a substantial challenge, as implementing VITT case definitions based on the co-occurrence of TWT results in large and heterogeneous incidence rate and in a cohort of patints with baseline characteristics that are inconsistent with the VITT cases reported to date.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Algorithms , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Humans , Phenotype , Retrospective Studies , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombocytopenia/epidemiology , Thrombosis/chemically induced , Thrombosis/etiology
2.
Frontiers in pharmacology ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1837646

ABSTRACT

Objective: Background incidence rates are routinely used in safety studies to evaluate an association of an exposure and outcome. Systematic research on sensitivity of rates to the choice of the study parameters is lacking. Materials and Methods: We used 12 data sources to systematically examine the influence of age, race, sex, database, time-at-risk, season and year, prior observation and clean window on incidence rates using 15 adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines as an example. For binary comparisons we calculated incidence rate ratios and performed random-effect meta-analysis. Results: We observed a wide variation of background rates that goes well beyond age and database effects previously observed. While rates vary up to a factor of 1,000 across age groups, even after adjusting for age and sex, the study showed residual bias due to the other parameters. Rates were highly influenced by the choice of anchoring (e.g., health visit, vaccination, or arbitrary date) for the time-at-risk start. Anchoring on a healthcare encounter yielded higher incidence comparing to a random date, especially for short time-at-risk. Incidence rates were highly influenced by the choice of the database (varying by up to a factor of 100), clean window choice and time-at-risk duration, and less so by secular or seasonal trends. Conclusion: Comparing background to observed rates requires appropriate adjustment and careful time-at-risk start and duration choice. Results should be interpreted in the context of study parameter choices.

3.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e057866, 2022 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784829

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how trends in incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Retrospective cohort study from 2018 to 2021 using the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database in Catalonia, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: 3 640 204 individuals aged 18 or older in SIDIAP on 1 March 2018 with no history of anxiety and depressive disorders. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: The incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders during the prelockdown period (March 2018-February 2020), lockdown period (March-June 2020) and postlockdown period (July 2020-March 2021) was calculated. Forecasted rates over the COVID-19 periods were estimated using negative binomial regression models based on prelockdown data. The percentage of reduction was estimated by comparing forecasted versus observed events, overall and by sex, age and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: The incidence rates per 100 000 person-months of anxiety and depressive disorders were 151.1 (95% CI 150.3 to 152.0) and 32.3 (31.9 to 32.6), respectively, during the prelockdown period. We observed an increase of 37.1% (95% prediction interval 25.5 to 50.2) in incident anxiety diagnoses compared with the expected in March 2020, followed by a reduction of 15.8% (7.3 to 23.5) during the postlockdown period. A reduction in incident depressive disorders occurred during the lockdown and postlockdown periods (45.6% (39.2 to 51.0) and 22.0% (12.6 to 30.1), respectively). Reductions were higher among women during the lockdown period, adults aged 18-34 years and individuals living in the most deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic in Catalonia was associated with an initial increase in anxiety disorders diagnosed in primary care but a reduction in cases as the pandemic continued. Diagnoses of depressive disorders were lower than expected throughout the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Communicable Disease Control , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
4.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 1678, 2022 03 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768824

ABSTRACT

Linear mixed models are commonly used in healthcare-based association analyses for analyzing multi-site data with heterogeneous site-specific random effects. Due to regulations for protecting patients' privacy, sensitive individual patient data (IPD) typically cannot be shared across sites. We propose an algorithm for fitting distributed linear mixed models (DLMMs) without sharing IPD across sites. This algorithm achieves results identical to those achieved using pooled IPD from multiple sites (i.e., the same effect size and standard error estimates), hence demonstrating the lossless property. The algorithm requires each site to contribute minimal aggregated data in only one round of communication. We demonstrate the lossless property of the proposed DLMM algorithm by investigating the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and length of hospital stay in COVID-19 patients using administrative claims from the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database. We extend this association study by incorporating 120,609 COVID-19 patients from 11 collaborative data sources worldwide.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Algorithms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Confidentiality , Databases, Factual , Humans , Linear Models
5.
Clin Epidemiol ; 14: 369-384, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760056

ABSTRACT

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.

7.
BMJ ; 376: e068373, 2022 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745759

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between covid-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and risk of immune mediated neurological events. DESIGN: Population based historical rate comparison study and self-controlled case series analysis. SETTING: Primary care records from the United Kingdom, and primary care records from Spain linked to hospital data. PARTICIPANTS: 8 330 497 people who received at least one dose of covid-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or Ad.26.COV2.S between the rollout of the vaccination campaigns and end of data availability (UK: 9 May 2021; Spain: 30 June 2021). The study sample also comprised a cohort of 735 870 unvaccinated individuals with a first positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test result for SARS-CoV-2 from 1 September 2020, and 14 330 080 participants from the general population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were incidence of Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis. Incidence rates were estimated in the 21 days after the first vaccine dose, 90 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, and between 2017 and 2019 for background rates in the general population cohort. Indirectly standardised incidence ratios were estimated. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated from the self-controlled case series. RESULTS: The study included 4 376 535 people who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 3 588 318 who received BNT162b2, 244 913 who received mRNA-1273, and 120 731 who received Ad26.CoV.2; 735 870 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; and 14 330 080 people from the general population. Overall, post-vaccine rates were consistent with expected (background) rates for Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Self-controlled case series was conducted only for Bell's palsy, given limited statistical power, but with no safety signal seen for those vaccinated. Rates were, however, higher than expected after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, in the data from the UK, the standardised incidence ratio for Bell's palsy was 1.33 (1.02 to 1.74), for encephalomyelitis was 6.89 (3.82 to 12.44), and for Guillain-Barré syndrome was 3.53 (1.83 to 6.77). Transverse myelitis was rare (<5 events in all vaccinated cohorts) and could not be analysed. CONCLUSIONS: No safety signal was observed between covid-19 vaccines and the immune mediated neurological events of Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis. An increased risk of Bell's palsy, encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome was, however, observed for people with SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Bell Palsy/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Encephalomyelitis/epidemiology , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/epidemiology , Myelitis, Transverse/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Routinely Collected Health Data , Spain , United Kingdom , Vaccination/adverse effects
9.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 22(1): 35, 2022 01 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1699687

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Pneumonia , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307499

ABSTRACT

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

11.
Int J Cancer ; 150(5): 782-794, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1607528

ABSTRACT

The relationship between cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and severity remains poorly understood. We conducted a population-based cohort study between 1 March and 6 May 2020 describing the associations between cancer and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation and COVID-19-related death. Data were obtained from the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database, including primary care electronic health records from ~80% of the population in Catalonia, Spain. Cancer was defined as any primary invasive malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the risk of COVID-19 (outpatient) clinical diagnosis, hospitalisation (with or without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis) and COVID-19-related death using Cox proportional hazard regressions. Models were estimated for the overall cancer population and by years since cancer diagnosis (<1 year, 1-5 years and ≥5 years), sex, age and cancer type; and adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, deprivation and comorbidities. We included 4 618 377 adults, of which 260 667 (5.6%) had a history of cancer. A total of 98 951 individuals (5.5% with cancer) were diagnosed, and 6355 (16.4% with cancer) were directly hospitalised with COVID-19. Of those diagnosed, 6851 were subsequently hospitalised (10.7% with cancer), and 3227 died without being hospitalised (18.5% with cancer). Among those hospitalised, 1963 (22.5% with cancer) died. Cancer was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [1.05-1.11]), direct COVID-19 hospitalisation (1.33 [1.24-1.43]) and death following hospitalisation (1.12 [1.01-1.25]). These associations were stronger for patients recently diagnosed with cancer, aged <70 years, and with haematological cancers. These patients should be prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and continued non-pharmaceutical interventions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/mortality , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , History, 21st Century , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , Young Adult
12.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e057632, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583090

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Int J Cancer ; 150(5): 782-794, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568104

ABSTRACT

The relationship between cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and severity remains poorly understood. We conducted a population-based cohort study between 1 March and 6 May 2020 describing the associations between cancer and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation and COVID-19-related death. Data were obtained from the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database, including primary care electronic health records from ~80% of the population in Catalonia, Spain. Cancer was defined as any primary invasive malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the risk of COVID-19 (outpatient) clinical diagnosis, hospitalisation (with or without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis) and COVID-19-related death using Cox proportional hazard regressions. Models were estimated for the overall cancer population and by years since cancer diagnosis (<1 year, 1-5 years and ≥5 years), sex, age and cancer type; and adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, deprivation and comorbidities. We included 4 618 377 adults, of which 260 667 (5.6%) had a history of cancer. A total of 98 951 individuals (5.5% with cancer) were diagnosed, and 6355 (16.4% with cancer) were directly hospitalised with COVID-19. Of those diagnosed, 6851 were subsequently hospitalised (10.7% with cancer), and 3227 died without being hospitalised (18.5% with cancer). Among those hospitalised, 1963 (22.5% with cancer) died. Cancer was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [1.05-1.11]), direct COVID-19 hospitalisation (1.33 [1.24-1.43]) and death following hospitalisation (1.12 [1.01-1.25]). These associations were stronger for patients recently diagnosed with cancer, aged <70 years, and with haematological cancers. These patients should be prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and continued non-pharmaceutical interventions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/mortality , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , History, 21st Century , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , Young Adult
14.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295136

ABSTRACT

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

15.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-294340

ABSTRACT

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

16.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 106(12): e5030-e5042, 2021 11 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546810

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: A comprehensive understanding of the association between body mass index (BMI) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between BMI and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization with COVID-19, and death after a COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization (subsequent death), accounting for potential effect modification by age and sex. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Primary care records covering >80% of the Catalan population, linked to regionwide testing, hospital, and mortality records from March to May 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) with at least 1 measurement of weight and height. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HR) for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 2 524 926 participants. After 67 days of follow-up, 57 443 individuals were diagnosed with COVID-19, 10 862 were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 2467 had a subsequent death. BMI was positively associated with being diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19. Compared to a BMI of 22 kg/m2, the HR (95% CI) of a BMI of 31 kg/m2 was 1.22 (1.19-1.24) for diagnosis and 1.88 (1.75-2.03) and 2.01 (1.86-2.18) for hospitalization without and with a prior outpatient diagnosis, respectively. The association between BMI and subsequent death was J-shaped, with a modestly higher risk of death among individuals with BMIs ≤ 19 kg/m2 and a more pronounced increasing risk for BMIs ≥ 40 kg/m2. The increase in risk for COVID-19 outcomes was particularly pronounced among younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a monotonic association between BMI and COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization risks but a J-shaped relationship with mortality. More research is needed to unravel the mechanisms underlying these relationships.


Subject(s)
Body Mass Index , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Risk Factors , Spain/epidemiology , Young Adult
17.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292868

ABSTRACT

Background: Few datasets have been established that capture the full breadth of COVID-19 patient interactions with a health system. Our first objective was to create a COVID-19 dataset that linked primary care data to COVID-19 testing, hospitalisation, and mortality data at a patient level. Our second objective was to provide a descriptive analysis of COVID-19 outcomes among the general population and describe the characteristics of the affected individuals. Methods We mapped patient-level data from Catalonia, Spain, to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). More than 3,000 data quality checks were performed to assess the readiness of the database for research. Subsequently, to summarise the COVID-19 population captured, we established a general population cohort as of the 1st March 2020 and identified outpatient COVID-19 diagnoses or positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, hospitalisations with COVID-19, and COVID-19 deaths during follow-up, which went up until 30th June 2021. Findings Mapping data to the OMOP CDM was performed and high data quality was observed. The mapped database was used to identify a total of 5,870,274 individuals, who were included in the general population cohort as of 1st March 2020. Over follow up, 604,472 had either an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test result, 58,991 had a hospitalisation with COVID-19, 5,642 had an ICU admission with COVID-19, and 11,233 had a COVID-19 death. People who were hospitalised or died were more commonly older, male, and with more comorbidities. Those admitted to ICU with COVID-19 were generally younger and more often male than those hospitalised in general and those who died. Interpretation We have established a comprehensive dataset that captures COVID-19 diagnoses, test results, hospitalisations, and deaths in Catalonia, Spain. Extensive data checks have shown the data to be fit for use. From this dataset, a general population cohort of 5.9 million individuals was identified and their COVID-19 outcomes over time were described. Funding Generalitat de Catalunya and European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN).

18.
Comput Methods Programs Biomed ; 211: 106394, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437413

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: As a response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several prediction models in the existing literature were rapidly developed, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance. However, none of these COVID-19 prediction models have been found to be reliable. Models are commonly assessed to have a risk of bias, often due to insufficient reporting, use of non-representative data, and lack of large-scale external validation. In this paper, we present the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modeling as a standardized approach for rapid yet reliable development and validation of prediction models. We demonstrate how our analytics pipeline and open-source software tools can be used to answer important prediction questions while limiting potential causes of bias (e.g., by validating phenotypes, specifying the target population, performing large-scale external validation, and publicly providing all analytical source code). METHODS: We show step-by-step how to implement the analytics pipeline for the question: 'In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, what is the risk of death 0 to 30 days after hospitalization?'. We develop models using six different machine learning methods in a USA claims database containing over 20,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and externally validate the models using data containing over 45,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations from South Korea, Spain, and the USA. RESULTS: Our open-source software tools enabled us to efficiently go end-to-end from problem design to reliable Model Development and evaluation. When predicting death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, AdaBoost, random forest, gradient boosting machine, and decision tree yielded similar or lower internal and external validation discrimination performance compared to L1-regularized logistic regression, whereas the MLP neural network consistently resulted in lower discrimination. L1-regularized logistic regression models were well calibrated. CONCLUSION: Our results show that following the OHDSI analytics pipeline for patient-level prediction modelling can enable the rapid development towards reliable prediction models. The OHDSI software tools and pipeline are open source and available to researchers from all around the world.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Logistic Models , Machine Learning , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Pediatrics ; 148(3)2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394618

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Age Distribution , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Databases, Factual , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , France/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Influenza, Human/complications , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Spain/epidemiology , Symptom Assessment , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
20.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 106(12): e5030-e5042, 2021 11 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322963

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: A comprehensive understanding of the association between body mass index (BMI) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between BMI and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization with COVID-19, and death after a COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization (subsequent death), accounting for potential effect modification by age and sex. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Primary care records covering >80% of the Catalan population, linked to regionwide testing, hospital, and mortality records from March to May 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) with at least 1 measurement of weight and height. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HR) for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 2 524 926 participants. After 67 days of follow-up, 57 443 individuals were diagnosed with COVID-19, 10 862 were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 2467 had a subsequent death. BMI was positively associated with being diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19. Compared to a BMI of 22 kg/m2, the HR (95% CI) of a BMI of 31 kg/m2 was 1.22 (1.19-1.24) for diagnosis and 1.88 (1.75-2.03) and 2.01 (1.86-2.18) for hospitalization without and with a prior outpatient diagnosis, respectively. The association between BMI and subsequent death was J-shaped, with a modestly higher risk of death among individuals with BMIs ≤ 19 kg/m2 and a more pronounced increasing risk for BMIs ≥ 40 kg/m2. The increase in risk for COVID-19 outcomes was particularly pronounced among younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a monotonic association between BMI and COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization risks but a J-shaped relationship with mortality. More research is needed to unravel the mechanisms underlying these relationships.


Subject(s)
Body Mass Index , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Risk Factors , Spain/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL