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.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 infection on young adult population: International observational federated study based on electronic health records through the 4CE consortium.

PURPOSE: In young adults (18 to 49 years old), investigation of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been limited. We evaluated the risk factors and outcomes of ARDS following infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a young adult population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 1st, 2020 and February 28th, 2021 using patient-level electronic health records (EHR), across 241 United States hospitals and 43 European hospitals participating in the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE). To identify the risk factors associated with ARDS, we compared young patients with and without ARDS through a federated analysis. We further compared the outcomes between young and old patients with ARDS. RESULTS: Among the 75,377 hospitalized patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR, 1001 young adults presented with ARDS (7.8% of young hospitalized adults). Their mortality rate at 90 days was 16.2% and they presented with a similar complication rate for infection than older adults with ARDS. Peptic ulcer disease, paralysis, obesity, congestive heart failure, valvular disease, diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease and liver disease were associated with a higher risk of ARDS. We described a high prevalence of obesity (53%), hypertension (38%- although not significantly associated with ARDS), and diabetes (32%). CONCLUSION: Trough an innovative method, a large international cohort study of young adults developing ARDS after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been gather. It demonstrated the poor outcomes of this population and associated risk factor.

Long-term kidney function recovery and mortality after COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury: An international multi-centre observational cohort study.

Background: While acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in COVID-19, data on post-AKI kidney function recovery and the clinical factors associated with poor kidney function recovery is lacking. Methods: A retrospective multi-centre observational cohort study comprising 12,891 hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction from 1 January 2020 to 10 September 2020, and with at least one serum creatinine value 1-365 days prior to admission. Mortality and serum creatinine values were obtained up to 10 September 2021. Findings: Advanced age (HR 2.77, 95%CI 2.53-3.04, p < 0.0001), severe COVID-19 (HR 2.91, 95%CI 2.03-4.17, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 4.22, 95%CI 3.55-5.00, p < 0.0001), and ischemic heart disease (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.14-1.39, p < 0.0001) were associated with worse mortality outcomes. AKI severity (KDIGO stage 3: HR 0.41, 95%CI 0.37-0.46, p < 0.0001) was associated with worse kidney function recovery, whereas remdesivir use (HR 1.34, 95%CI 1.17-1.54, p < 0.0001) was associated with better kidney function recovery. In a subset of patients without chronic kidney disease, advanced age (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.20-1.58, p < 0.0001), male sex (HR 1.67, 95%CI 1.45-1.93, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 11.68, 95%CI 9.80-13.91, p < 0.0001), and hypertension (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.10-1.36, p = 0.0002) were associated with post-AKI kidney function impairment. Furthermore, patients with COVID-19-associated AKI had significant and persistent elevations of baseline serum creatinine 125% or more at 180 days (RR 1.49, 95%CI 1.32-1.67) and 365 days (RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.21-1.96) compared to COVID-19 patients with no AKI. Interpretation: COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with higher mortality, and severe COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with worse long-term post-AKI kidney function recovery. Funding: Authors are supported by various funders, with full details stated in the acknowledgement section.

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.

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.

What Every Reader Should Know About Studies Using Electronic Health Record Data but May Be Afraid to Ask.

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.

Validation of an internationally derived patient severity phenotype to support COVID-19 analytics from electronic health record data.

OBJECTIVE: The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site. RESULTS: The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review. DISCUSSION: We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

International electronic health record-derived COVID-19 clinical course profiles: the 4CE consortium.

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.