Search

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2021 UICC.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SLD reports grants from Anolinx. MAS reports grants from US National Institutes of Health, grants from Department of Veterans Affairs, during the conduct of the study; grants from IQVIA, personal fees from Janssen Research and Development, grants from US Food and Drug Administration, personal fees from Private Health Management, outside the submitted work. GH reports grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study; and grants from Janssen Research, outside the submitted work. FN reports being an employee of AstraZeneca until 2019 and holds some AstraZeneca shares, outside the submitted work. KK reports personal fees from the National Institutes of Health, outside the submitted work, and at the time of data analysis and initial drafting of the manuscript. KK was an employee of IQVIA. CRei reports he is an employee of IQVIA. GdM is an employee of IOMED. NV is an employee of TFS. AGS reports personal fees from Janssen R&D, outside the submitted work, and is a full-time employee of Janssen R&D and a Johnson and Johnson shareholder. CB reports personal fees from Janssen R&D, outside the submitted work, and is a full-time employee of Janssen R&D and a Johnson and Johnson shareholder. JDP reports grants from the National Library of Medicine, during the conduct of the study. AG is an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and reports stocks from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. PRR reports having received research group grants from Innovative Medicine Initiative and Janssen Research and Development. PR reports being an employee of Janssen Research and Development and a shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. ER, SF-B, NS, LMS, DP, SCY, MR, AP-U, HA, KEL, MEM, AO, CA, CRey, TD-S, TMA, OA, W-U-RA, ILM, JMR, LSR, DD, LL and AP have nothing to declare. No other relationships or activities could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity., Methods: We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status., Results: We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity., Conclusion: We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CB, MJS, AGS, JMR are employees of Janssen Research & Development and shareholders of Johnson & Johnson., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza., Methods: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes., Results: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza ( n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events., Conclusions: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent., Impact: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background and objectiveAs 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsOur 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.ConclusionOur 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.

Purpose: The primary aim of this work was to convert the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) from Catalonia, Spain, to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). Our second aim was to provide a descriptive analysis of COVID-19-related outcomes among the general population.Patients and Methods: We mapped patient-level data from SIDIAP to the OMOP CDM and we performed more than 3,400 data quality checks to assess its readiness for research. We established a general population cohort as of the 1st March 2020 and identified outpatient COVID-19 diagnoses or tested positive for, hospitalised with, admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with, died with, or vaccinated against COVID-19 up to 30th June 2022.Results: After verifying the high quality of the transformed dataset, we included 5,870,274 individuals in the general population cohort. Of those, 604,472 had either an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test result, 58,991 had a hospitalisation, 5,642 had an ICU admission, and 11,233 died with COVID-19. A total of 4,584,515 received a COVID-19 vaccine. 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 and those who died.Conclusion: We successfully transformed SIDIAP to the OMOP CDM. From this dataset, a general population cohort of 5.9 million individuals was identified and their COVID-19-related outcomes over time were described. The transformed SIDIAP database is a valuable resource that can enable distributed network research in COVID-19 and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]