Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1772832

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Algorithms for classification of inpatient COVID-19 severity are necessary for confounding control in studies using real-world data. METHODS: Using Healthverity chargemaster and claims data, we selected patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between April 2020 and February 2021, and classified them by severity at admission using an algorithm we developed based on respiratory support requirements (supplemental oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, O2/NIV, invasive mechanical ventilation, IMV, or NEITHER). To evaluate the utility of the algorithm, patients were followed from admission until death, discharge, or a 28-day maximum to report mortality risks and rates overall and by stratified by severity. Trends for heterogeneity in mortality risk and rate across severity classifications were evaluated using Cochran-Armitage and Logrank trend tests, respectively. RESULTS: Among 118,117 patients, the algorithm categorized patients in increasing severity as NEITHER (36.7%), O2/NIV (54.3%), and IMV (9.0%). Associated mortality risk (and 95% CI) was 11.8% (11.6-12.0%) overall and increased with severity [3.4% (3.2- 3.5%), 11.5% (11.3-11.8%), 47.3% (46.3-48.2%); p<0.001]. Mortality rate per 1000 person-days (and 95% CI) was 15.1 (14.9-15.4) overall and increased with severity [5.7 (5.4- 6.0), 14.5 (14.2-14.9), 32.7 (31.8-33.6); p<0.001]. CONCLUSION: As expected, we observed a positive association between the algorithm-defined severity on admission and 28-day mortality risk and rate. Although performance remains to be validated, this provides some assurance that this algorithm may be used for confounding control or stratification in treatment effect studies.

2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e222959, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1748798

ABSTRACT

Importance: Vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus is critical to control the pandemic. Randomized clinical trials demonstrated efficacy of the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine, but data on longer-term protection in clinical practice and effectiveness against variants are needed. Objective: To assess the association between receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and COVID-19-related infections and hospitalizations before and during the Delta variant surge. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults aged 18 years and older who were newly Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated matched to as many as 10 unvaccinated individuals by date, location, age, sex, and comorbidity index. This was followed by 1:4 propensity score matching on COVID-19 risk factors. Data were collected from US insurance claims data from March 1, 2020, through August 31, 2021. Exposures: Vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S vs no vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated for recorded COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalization, nationwide and in subgroups by age, high-risk factors, calendar time, and states with high incidences of the Delta variant. VE estimates were corrected for underrecording of vaccinations in insurance data. Results: Among 422 034 vaccinated individuals (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [17.4] years; 236 437 [56.0%] women) and 1 645 397 matched unvaccinated individuals (mean [SD] age, 54.5 [17.5] years; 922 937 [56.1%] women), VE was 76% (95% CI, 75%-77%) for COVID-19 infections and 81% (95% CI, 78%-82%) for COVID-19-related hospitalizations. VE was stable for at least 180 days after vaccination and over calendar time. Among states with high Delta variant incidence, VE during June to August 2021 was 74% (95% CI, 71%-77%) for infections and 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for hospitalizations. VE for COVID-19 was higher in individuals younger than 65 years (78%; 95% CI, 77%-79%) and lower in immunocompromised patients (64%; 95% CI, 59%-68%). All estimates were corrected for vaccination underrecording; uncorrected VE, which served as a lower bound, was 66% (95% CI, 64%-67%) for any recorded COVID-19 infection and 72% (95% CI, 69%-74%) for COVID-19-related hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study in US clinical practice showed stable VE of Ad26.COV2.S for at least 6 months before as well as during the time the Delta variant emerged and became dominant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , United States , Young Adult
3.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248128, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Data Management/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
4.
CMAJ ; 193(11): E389-E398, 2021 Mar 15.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154095

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: De nombreuses études sur les complications de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont reposé sur des séries de cas et de petites cohortes qui ne permettaient pas d'établir un lien causal avec la COVID-19 ni d'estimer les risques dans les différents milieux de soins. Nous avons voulu étudier toutes les complications possibles de la COVID-19 afin de confirmer les complications précédemment déclarées et d'identifier de potentielles complications encore inconnues. MÉTHODES: À partir des données sur les demandes de remboursement de frais médicaux aux États-Unis, nous avons comparé la fréquence de tous les codes de diagnostic de la Classification internationale des maladies, 10 e révision, modification clinique (CIM-10-MC) enregistrés avant et après le déclenchement de la pandémie de COVID-19 dans un modèle d'auto-appariement pré- et post-exposition. Nous avons inclus les patients ayant reçu un diagnostic de COVID-19 entre le 1er mars 2020 et le 30 avril 2020, et calculé les estimations de risque et les rapports de cotes (RC) pour le lien avec la COVID-19 de chaque code de diagnostic de la CIM-10-MC. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1724 codes de diagnostic de la CIM-10-MC attribués à 70 288 patients atteints de COVID-19, 69 étaient significativement liés à la COVID-19. Les diagnostics étroitement liés à la COVID-19 et comportant un risque absolu élevé comprenaient la pneumonie virale (RC 177,63; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 147,19­214,37; risque absolu 27,6 %), l'insuffisance respiratoire (RC 11,36; IC à 95 % 10,74­12,02; risque absolu 22,6 %), l'insuffisance rénale aiguë (RC 3,50; IC à 95 % 3,34­3,68; risque absolu 11,8 %) et la sepsie (RC 4,23; IC à 95 % 4,01­4,46; risque absolu 10,4 %). Les diagnostics étroitement liés à la COVID-19, mais comportant un risque absolu faible comprenaient la myocardite (RC 8,17; IC à 95 % 3,58­18,62; risque absolu 0,1 %), la coagulation intravasculaire disséminée (RC 11,83; IC à 95 % 5,26­26,62; risque absolu 0,1 %) et le pneumothorax (RC 3,38; IC à 95 % 2,68­4,26; risque absolu 0,4 %). INTERPRÉTATION: Nous avons confirmé et établi les estimations du risque de plusieurs complications de la COVID-19. Ces résultats pourraient orienter le pronostic, les décisions thérapeutiques et les conseils aux patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , Renal Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Risk Assessment/methods , Thrombosis/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prognosis , Renal Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Thrombosis/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
5.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(5): 672-679, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1098863

ABSTRACT

Importance: Understanding the effect of serum antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on susceptibility to infection is important for identifying at-risk populations and could have implications for vaccine deployment. Objective: The study purpose was to evaluate evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among patients with positive vs negative test results for antibodies in an observational descriptive cohort study of clinical laboratory and linked claims data. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study created cohorts from a deidentified data set composed of commercial laboratory tests, medical and pharmacy claims, electronic health records, and hospital chargemaster data. Patients were categorized as antibody-positive or antibody-negative according to their first SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in the database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were post-index diagnostic NAAT results, with infection defined as a positive diagnostic test post-index, measured in 30-day intervals (0-30, 31-60, 61-90, >90 days). Additional measures included demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics at the time of the index antibody test, including recorded signs and symptoms or prior evidence of coronavirus 2019 (COVID) diagnoses or positive NAAT results and recorded comorbidities. Results: The cohort included 3 257 478 unique patients with an index antibody test; 56% were female with a median (SD) age of 48 (20) years. Of these, 2 876 773 (88.3%) had a negative index antibody result, and 378 606 (11.6%) had a positive index antibody result. Patients with a negative antibody test result were older than those with a positive result (mean age 48 vs 44 years). Of index-positive patients, 18.4% converted to seronegative over the follow-up period. During the follow-up periods, the ratio (95% CI) of positive NAAT results among individuals who had a positive antibody test at index vs those with a negative antibody test at index was 2.85 (95% CI, 2.73-2.97) at 0 to 30 days, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.6-0.74) at 31 to 60 days, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.24-0.35) at 61 to 90 days, and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.19) at more than 90 days. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with positive antibody test results were initially more likely to have positive NAAT results, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but became markedly less likely to have positive NAAT results over time, suggesting that seropositivity is associated with protection from infection. The duration of protection is unknown, and protection may wane over time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Disease Susceptibility , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Age Factors , Antibodies, Viral/isolation & purification , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , Correlation of Data , Disease Susceptibility/diagnosis , Disease Susceptibility/epidemiology , Disease Susceptibility/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Virus Shedding/immunology
6.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 109(4): 816-828, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059420

ABSTRACT

The emergence and global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in an urgent need for evidence on medical interventions and outcomes of the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 are already in progress, the number of clinical questions of interest greatly outpaces the available resources to conduct RCTs. Therefore, there is growing interest in whether nonrandomized real-world evidence (RWE) can be used to supplement RCT evidence and aid in clinical decision making, but concerns about nonrandomized RWE have been highlighted by a proliferation of RWE studies on medications and COVID-19 outcomes with widely varying conclusions. The objective of this paper is to review some clinical questions of interest, potential data types, challenges, and merits of RWE in COVID-19, resulting in recommendations for nonrandomized RWE designs and analyses based on established RWE principles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Research Design/standards , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Drug Therapy, Combination , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Insurance Claim Review/statistics & numerical data , Macrolides/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors
7.
CMAJ ; 193(1): E10-E18, 2021 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1021693

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many studies reporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complications have involved case series or small cohorts that could not establish a causal association with COVID-19 or provide risk estimates in different care settings. We sought to study all possible complications of COVID-19 to confirm previously reported complications and to identify potential complications not yet known. METHODS: Using United States health claims data, we compared the frequency of all International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes occurring before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in an exposure-crossover design. We included patients who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Mar. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2020, and computed risk estimates and odds ratios (ORs) of association with COVID-19 for every ICD-10-CM diagnosis code. RESULTS: Among 70 288 patients with COVID-19, 69 of 1724 analyzed ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes were significantly associated with COVID-19. Disorders showing both strong association with COVID-19 and high absolute risk included viral pneumonia (OR 177.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 147.19-214.37, absolute risk 27.6%), respiratory failure (OR 11.36, 95% CI 10.74-12.02, absolute risk 22.6%), acute kidney failure (OR 3.50, 95% CI 3.34-3.68, absolute risk 11.8%) and sepsis (OR 4.23, 95% CI 4.01-4.46, absolute risk 10.4%). Disorders showing strong associations with COVID-19 but low absolute risk included myocarditis (OR 8.17, 95% CI 3.58-18.62, absolute risk 0.1%), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR 11.83, 95% CI 5.26-26.62, absolute risk 0.1%) and pneumothorax (OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.68-4.26, absolute risk 0.4%). INTERPRETATION: We confirmed and provided risk estimates for numerous complications of COVID-19. These results may guide prognosis, treatment decisions and patient counselling.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/complications , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Risk Assessment/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL