Search

Electronic health records (EHRs) contain a wealth of information that can be used to further precision health. One particular data element in EHRs that is not only under-utilized but oftentimes unaccounted for is missing data. However, missingness can provide valuable information about comorbidities and best practices for monitoring patients, which could save lives and reduce burden on the healthcare system. We characterize patterns of missing data in laboratory measurements collected at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital System from long-term COVID-19 patients and focus on the changes in these patterns between 2020 and 2021. We investigate how these patterns are associated with comorbidities such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 90-day mortality in ARDS patients. This work displays how knowledge and experience can change the way clinicians and hospitals manage a novel disease. It can also provide insight into best practices when it comes to patient monitoring to improve outcomes., (©2023 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

COVID-19 often manifests with different outcomes in different patients, highlighting the complexity of the host-pathogen interactions involved in manifestations of the disease at the molecular and cellular levels. In this paper, we propose a set of postulates and a framework for systematically understanding complex molecular host-pathogen interaction networks. Specifically, we first propose four host-pathogen interaction (HPI) postulates as the basis for understanding molecular and cellular host-pathogen interactions and their relations to disease outcomes. These four postulates cover the evolutionary dispositions involved in HPIs, the dynamic nature of HPI outcomes, roles that HPI components may occupy leading to such outcomes, and HPI checkpoints that are critical for specific disease outcomes. Based on these postulates, an HPI Postulate and Ontology (HPIPO) framework is proposed to apply interoperable ontologies to systematically model and represent various granular details and knowledge within the scope of the HPI postulates, in a way that will support AI-ready data standardization, sharing, integration, and analysis. As a demonstration, the HPI postulates and the HPIPO framework were applied to study COVID-19 with the Coronavirus Infectious Disease Ontology (CIDO), leading to a novel approach to rational design of drug/vaccine cocktails aimed at interrupting processes occurring at critical host-coronavirus interaction checkpoints. Furthermore, the host-coronavirus protein-protein interactions (PPIs) relevant to COVID-19 were predicted and evaluated based on prior knowledge of curated PPIs and domain-domain interactions, and how such studies can be further explored with the HPI postulates and the HPIPO framework is discussed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Yu, Li, Huffman, Beverley, Hur, Merrell, Huang, Wang, Liu, Ong, Cheng, Zeng, Zhang, Li, Liu, Wang, Zhang, Ye, Handelman, Sexton, Eaton, Higgins, Omenn, Athey, Smith, Chen and He.)

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with an increase in mental health diagnoses among adolescents, though the extent of the increase, particularly for severe cases requiring hospitalization, has not been well characterized. Large-scale federated informatics approaches provide the ability to efficiently and securely query health care data sets to assess and monitor hospitalization patterns for mental health conditions among adolescents., Objective: To estimate changes in the proportion of hospitalizations associated with mental health conditions among adolescents following onset of the COVID-19 pandemic., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multisite cohort study of adolescents 11 to 17 years of age who were hospitalized with at least 1 mental health condition diagnosis between February 1, 2019, and April 30, 2021, used patient-level data from electronic health records of 8 children's hospitals in the US and France., Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in the monthly proportion of mental health condition-associated hospitalizations between the prepandemic (February 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020) and pandemic (April 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) periods using interrupted time series analysis., Results: There were 9696 adolescents hospitalized with a mental health condition during the prepandemic period (5966 [61.5%] female) and 11 101 during the pandemic period (7603 [68.5%] female). The mean (SD) age in the prepandemic cohort was 14.6 (1.9) years and in the pandemic cohort, 14.7 (1.8) years. The most prevalent diagnoses during the pandemic were anxiety (6066 [57.4%]), depression (5065 [48.0%]), and suicidality or self-injury (4673 [44.2%]). There was an increase in the proportions of monthly hospitalizations during the pandemic for anxiety (0.55%; 95% CI, 0.26%-0.84%), depression (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.19%-0.79%), and suicidality or self-injury (0.38%; 95% CI, 0.08%-0.68%). There was an estimated 0.60% increase (95% CI, 0.31%-0.89%) overall in the monthly proportion of mental health-associated hospitalizations following onset of the pandemic compared with the prepandemic period., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased hospitalizations with mental health diagnoses among adolescents. These findings support the need for greater resources within children's hospitals to care for adolescents with mental health conditions during the pandemic and beyond.

Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic and the previous SARS/MERS outbreaks of 2003 and 2012 have resulted in a series of major global public health crises. We argue that in the interest of developing effective and safe vaccines and drugs and to better understand coronaviruses and associated disease mechenisms it is necessary to integrate the large and exponentially growing body of heterogeneous coronavirus data. Ontologies play an important role in standard-based knowledge and data representation, integration, sharing, and analysis. Accordingly, we initiated the development of the community-based Coronavirus Infectious Disease Ontology (CIDO) in early 2020., Results: As an Open Biomedical Ontology (OBO) library ontology, CIDO is open source and interoperable with other existing OBO ontologies. CIDO is aligned with the Basic Formal Ontology and Viral Infectious Disease Ontology. CIDO has imported terms from over 30 OBO ontologies. For example, CIDO imports all SARS-CoV-2 protein terms from the Protein Ontology, COVID-19-related phenotype terms from the Human Phenotype Ontology, and over 100 COVID-19 terms for vaccines (both authorized and in clinical trial) from the Vaccine Ontology. CIDO systematically represents variants of SARS-CoV-2 viruses and over 300 amino acid substitutions therein, along with over 300 diagnostic kits and methods. CIDO also describes hundreds of host-coronavirus protein-protein interactions (PPIs) and the drugs that target proteins in these PPIs. CIDO has been used to model COVID-19 related phenomena in areas such as epidemiology. The scope of CIDO was evaluated by visual analysis supported by a summarization network method. CIDO has been used in various applications such as term standardization, inference, natural language processing (NLP) and clinical data integration. We have applied the amino acid variant knowledge present in CIDO to analyze differences between SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants. CIDO's integrative host-coronavirus PPIs and drug-target knowledge has also been used to support drug repurposing for COVID-19 treatment., Conclusion: CIDO represents entities and relations in the domain of coronavirus diseases with a special focus on COVID-19. It supports shared knowledge representation, data and metadata standardization and integration, and has been used in a range of applications., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To assess changes in international mortality rates and laboratory recovery rates during hospitalisation for patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 between the first wave (1 March to 30 June 2020) and the second wave (1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic., Design, Setting and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study of 83 178 hospitalised patients admitted between 7 days before or 14 days after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by Electronic Health Record, an international multihealthcare system collaborative of 288 hospitals in the USA and Europe. The laboratory recovery rates and mortality rates over time were compared between the two waves of the pandemic., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate within 28 days after hospitalisation stratified by predicted low, medium and high mortality risk at baseline. The secondary outcome was the average rate of change in laboratory values during the first week of hospitalisation., Results: Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and laboratory values at admission were not significantly different between the first and second waves. The improvement in laboratory values over time was faster in the second wave compared with the first. The average C reactive protein rate of change was -4.72 mg/dL vs -4.14 mg/dL per day (p=0.05). The mortality rates within each risk category significantly decreased over time, with the most substantial decrease in the high-risk group (42.3% in March-April 2020 vs 30.8% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001) and a moderate decrease in the intermediate-risk group (21.5% in March-April 2020 vs 14.3% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001)., Conclusions: Admission profiles of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection did not differ greatly between the first and second waves of the pandemic, but there were notable differences in laboratory improvement rates during hospitalisation. Mortality risks among patients with similar risk profiles decreased over the course of the pandemic. The improvement in laboratory values and mortality risk was consistent across multiple countries., 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.)

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., (©Jeffrey G Klann, Zachary H Strasser, Meghan R Hutch, Chris J Kennedy, Jayson S Marwaha, Michele Morris, Malarkodi Jebathilagam Samayamuthu, Ashley C Pfaff, Hossein Estiri, Andrew M South, Griffin M Weber, William Yuan, Paul Avillach, Kavishwar B Wagholikar, Yuan Luo, The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE), Gilbert S Omenn, Shyam Visweswaran, John H Holmes, Zongqi Xia, Gabriel A Brat, Shawn N Murphy. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.05.2022.)

Neurological complications worsen outcomes in COVID-19. To define the prevalence of neurological conditions among hospitalized patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test in geographically diverse multinational populations during early pandemic, we used electronic health records (EHR) from 338 participating hospitals across 6 countries and 3 continents (January-September 2020) for a cross-sectional analysis. We assessed the frequency of International Classification of Disease code of neurological conditions by countries, healthcare systems, time before and after admission for COVID-19 and COVID-19 severity. Among 35,177 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was an increase in the proportion with disorders of consciousness (5.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-7.8%, p FDR  < 0.001) and unspecified disorders of the brain (8.1%, 5.7-10.5%, p FDR  < 0.001) when compared to the pre-admission proportion. During hospitalization, the relative risk of disorders of consciousness (22%, 19-25%), cerebrovascular diseases (24%, 13-35%), nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (34%, 20-50%), encephalitis and/or myelitis (37%, 17-60%) and myopathy (72%, 67-77%) were higher for patients with severe COVID-19 when compared to those who never experienced severe COVID-19. Leveraging a multinational network to capture standardized EHR data, we highlighted the increased prevalence of central and peripheral neurological phenotypes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, particularly among those with severe disease., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Many countries have experienced 2 predominant waves of COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Comparing the clinical trajectories of patients hospitalized in separate waves of the pandemic enables further understanding of the evolving epidemiology, pathophysiology, and health care dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic., Objective: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections hospitalized in participating health care systems representing 315 hospitals across 6 countries. We compared hospitalization rates, severe COVID-19 risk, and mean laboratory values between patients hospitalized during the first and second waves of the pandemic., Methods: Using a federated approach, each participating health care system extracted patient-level clinical data on their first and second wave cohorts and submitted aggregated data to the central site. Data quality control steps were adopted at the central site to correct for implausible values and harmonize units. Statistical analyses were performed by computing individual health care system effect sizes and synthesizing these using random effect meta-analyses to account for heterogeneity. We focused the laboratory analysis on C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, fibrinogen, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and creatinine based on their reported associations with severe COVID-19., Results: Data were available for 79,613 patients, of which 32,467 were hospitalized in the first wave and 47,146 in the second wave. The prevalence of male patients and patients aged 50 to 69 years decreased significantly between the first and second waves. Patients hospitalized in the second wave had a 9.9% reduction in the risk of severe COVID-19 compared to patients hospitalized in the first wave (95% CI 8.5%-11.3%). Demographic subgroup analyses indicated that patients aged 26 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years; male and female patients; and black patients had significantly lower risk for severe disease in the second wave than in the first wave. At admission, the mean values of CRP were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. On the seventh hospital day, the mean values of CRP, ferritin, fibrinogen, and procalcitonin were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. In general, countries exhibited variable changes in laboratory testing rates from the first to the second wave. At admission, there was a significantly higher testing rate for D-dimer in France, Germany, and Spain., Conclusions: Patients hospitalized in the second wave were at significantly lower risk for severe COVID-19. This corresponded to mean laboratory values in the second wave that were more likely to be in typical physiological ranges on the seventh hospital day compared to the first wave. Our federated approach demonstrated the feasibility and power of harmonizing heterogeneous EHR data from multiple international health care systems to rapidly conduct large-scale studies to characterize how COVID-19 clinical trajectories evolve., (©Griffin M Weber, Harrison G Zhang, Sehi L'Yi, Clara-Lea Bonzel, Chuan Hong, Paul Avillach, Alba Gutiérrez-Sacristán, Nathan P Palmer, Amelia Li Min Tan, Xuan Wang, William Yuan, Nils Gehlenborg, Anna Alloni, Danilo F Amendola, Antonio Bellasi, Riccardo Bellazzi, Michele Beraghi, Mauro Bucalo, Luca Chiovato, Kelly Cho, Arianna Dagliati, Hossein Estiri, Robert W Follett, Noelia García Barrio, David A Hanauer, Darren W Henderson, Yuk-Lam Ho, John H Holmes, Meghan R Hutch, Ramakanth Kavuluru, Katie Kirchoff, Jeffrey G Klann, Ashok K Krishnamurthy, Trang T Le, Molei Liu, Ne Hooi Will Loh, Sara Lozano-Zahonero, Yuan Luo, Sarah Maidlow, Adeline Makoudjou, Alberto Malovini, Marcelo Roberto Martins, Bertrand Moal, Michele Morris, Danielle L Mowery, Shawn N Murphy, Antoine Neuraz, Kee Yuan Ngiam, Marina P Okoshi, Gilbert S Omenn, Lav P Patel, Miguel Pedrera Jiménez, Robson A Prudente, Malarkodi Jebathilagam Samayamuthu, Fernando J Sanz Vidorreta, Emily R Schriver, Petra Schubert, Pablo Serrano Balazote, Byorn WL Tan, Suzana E Tanni, Valentina Tibollo, Shyam Visweswaran, Kavishwar B Wagholikar, Zongqi Xia, Daniela Zöller, The Consortium For Clinical Characterization Of COVID-19 By EHR (4CE), Isaac S Kohane, Tianxi Cai, Andrew M South, Gabriel A Brat. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.10.2021.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Importance: Additional sources of pediatric epidemiological and clinical data are needed to efficiently study COVID-19 in children and youth and inform infection prevention and clinical treatment of pediatric patients., Objective: To describe international hospitalization trends and key epidemiological and clinical features of children and youth with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included pediatric patients hospitalized between February 2 and October 10, 2020. Patient-level electronic health record (EHR) data were collected across 27 hospitals in France, Germany, Spain, Singapore, the UK, and the US. Patients younger than 21 years who tested positive for COVID-19 and were hospitalized at an institution participating in the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR were included in the study., Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient characteristics, clinical features, and medication use., Results: There were 347 males (52%; 95% CI, 48.5-55.3) and 324 females (48%; 95% CI, 44.4-51.3) in this study's cohort. There was a bimodal age distribution, with the greatest proportion of patients in the 0- to 2-year (199 patients [30%]) and 12- to 17-year (170 patients [25%]) age range. Trends in hospitalizations for 671 children and youth found discrete surges with variable timing across 6 countries. Data from this cohort mirrored national-level pediatric hospitalization trends for most countries with available data, with peaks in hospitalizations during the initial spring surge occurring within 23 days in the national-level and 4CE data. A total of 27 364 laboratory values for 16 laboratory tests were analyzed, with mean values indicating elevations in markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, 83 mg/L; 95% CI, 53-112 mg/L; ferritin, 417 ng/mL; 95% CI, 228-607 ng/mL; and procalcitonin, 1.45 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.13-2.77 ng/mL). Abnormalities in coagulation were also evident (D-dimer, 0.78 ug/mL; 95% CI, 0.35-1.21 ug/mL; and fibrinogen, 477 mg/dL; 95% CI, 385-569 mg/dL). Cardiac troponin, when checked (n = 59), was elevated (0.032 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.000-0.080 ng/mL). Common complications included cardiac arrhythmias (15.0%; 95% CI, 8.1%-21.7%), viral pneumonia (13.3%; 95% CI, 6.5%-20.1%), and respiratory failure (10.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-15.3%). Few children were treated with COVID-19-directed medications., Conclusions and Relevance: This study of EHRs of children and youth hospitalized for COVID-19 in 6 countries demonstrated variability in hospitalization trends across countries and identified common complications and laboratory abnormalities in children and youth with COVID-19 infection. Large-scale informatics-based approaches to integrate and analyze data across health care systems complement methods of disease surveillance and advance understanding of epidemiological and clinical features associated with COVID-19 in children and youth.

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., (©Isaac S Kohane, Bruce J Aronow, Paul Avillach, Brett K Beaulieu-Jones, Riccardo Bellazzi, Robert L Bradford, Gabriel A Brat, Mario Cannataro, James J Cimino, Noelia García-Barrio, Nils Gehlenborg, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Alba Gutiérrez-Sacristán, David A Hanauer, John H Holmes, Chuan Hong, Jeffrey G Klann, Ne Hooi Will Loh, Yuan Luo, Kenneth D Mandl, Mohamad Daniar, Jason H Moore, Shawn N Murphy, Antoine Neuraz, Kee Yuan Ngiam, Gilbert S Omenn, Nathan Palmer, Lav P Patel, Miguel Pedrera-Jiménez, Piotr Sliz, Andrew M South, Amelia Li Min Tan, Deanne M Taylor, Bradley W Taylor, Carlo Torti, Andrew K Vallejos, Kavishwar B Wagholikar, The Consortium For Clinical Characterization Of COVID-19 By EHR (4CE), Griffin M Weber, Tianxi Cai. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.03.2021.)

Despite considerable research progress on SARS-CoV-2, the direct zoonotic origin (intermediate host) of the virus remains ambiguous. The most definitive approach to identify the intermediate host would be the detection of SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses in wild animals. However, due to the high number of animal species, it is not feasible to screen all the species in the laboratory. Given that binding to ACE2 proteins is the first step for the coronaviruses to invade host cells, we propose a computational pipeline to identify potential intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2 by modeling the binding affinity between the Spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) and host ACE2. Using this pipeline, we systematically examined 285 ACE2 variants from mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians, and found that the binding energies calculated for the modeled Spike-RBD/ACE2 complex structures correlated closely with the effectiveness of animal infection as determined by multiple experimental data sets. Built on the optimized binding affinity cutoff, we suggest a set of 96 mammals, including 48 experimentally investigated ones, which are permissive to SARS-CoV-2, with candidates from primates, rodents, and carnivores at the highest risk of infection. Overall, this work not only suggests a limited range of potential intermediate SARS-CoV-2 hosts for further experimental investigation, but also, more importantly, it proposes a new structure-based approach to general zoonotic origin and susceptibility analyses that are critical for human infectious disease control and wildlife protection.

Given the growing number of prediction algorithms developed to predict COVID-19 mortality, we evaluated the transportability of a mortality prediction algorithm using a multi-national network of healthcare systems. We predicted COVID-19 mortality using baseline commonly measured laboratory values and standard demographic and clinical covariates across healthcare systems, countries, and continents. Specifically, we trained a Cox regression model with nine measured laboratory test values, standard demographics at admission, and comorbidity burden pre-admission. These models were compared at site, country, and continent level. Of the 39,969 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (68.6% male), 5717 (14.3%) died. In the Cox model, age, albumin, AST, creatine, CRP, and white blood cell count are most predictive of mortality. The baseline covariates are more predictive of mortality during the early days of COVID-19 hospitalization. Models trained at healthcare systems with larger cohort size largely retain good transportability performance when porting to different sites. The combination of routine laboratory test values at admission along with basic demographic features can predict mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Importantly, this potentially deployable model differs from prior work by demonstrating not only consistent performance but also reliable transportability across healthcare systems in the US and Europe, highlighting the generalizability of this model and the overall approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One‐fifth of the way through the 21st century, a commonality of factors with those of the last 50 years may offer the opportunity to address unfinished business and current challenges. The recommendations include: (1) Resisting the tendency to oversimplify scientific assessments by reliance on single disciplines in lieu of clear weight‐of‐evidence expressions, and on single quantitative point estimates of health protective values for policy decisions; (2) Improving the separation of science and judgment in risk assessment through the use of clear expressions of the range of judgments that bracket protective quantitative levels for public health protection; (3) Use of comparative risk to achieve the greatest gains in health and the environment; and (4) Where applicable, reversal of the risk assessment and risk management steps to facilitate timely and substantive improvements in public health and the environment. Lessons learned and improvements in the risk assessment process are applied to the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century such as, pandemics and climate change. The beneficial application of the risk assessment and risk management paradigm to ensure timely research with consistency and transparency of assessments is presented. Institutions with mandated stability and leadership roles at the national and international levels are essential to ensure timely interdisciplinary scientific assessment at the interface with public policy as a basis for organized policy decisions, to meet time sensitive goals, and to inform the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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 disease vs. 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 were to: first, quantify the frequency of incidental hospitalizations over the first fifteen 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 four US healthcare systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, a random sample of 1,123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized between 3/2020-8/2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as admitted-with-COVID-19 (incidental) vs. 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%-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.Clinicaltrial: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positively charged groups that mimic arginine or lysine in a natural substrate of trypsin are necessary for drugs to inhibit the trypsin-like serine protease TMPRSS2 that is involved in the viral entry and spread of coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Based on this assumption, we identified a set of 13 approved or clinically investigational drugs with positively charged guanidinobenzoyl and/or aminidinobenzoyl groups, including the experimentally verified TMPRSS2 inhibitors Camostat and Nafamostat. Molecular docking using the C-I-TASSER-predicted TMPRSS2 catalytic domain model suggested that the guanidinobenzoyl or aminidinobenzoyl group in all the drugs could form putative salt bridge interactions with the side-chain carboxyl group of Asp435 located in the S1 pocket of TMPRSS2. Molecular dynamics simulations further revealed the high stability of the putative salt bridge interactions over long-time (100 ns) simulations. The molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area-binding free energy assessment and per-residue energy decomposition analysis also supported the strong binding interactions between TMPRSS2 and the proposed drugs. These results suggest that the proposed compounds, in addition to Camostat and Nafamostat, could be effective TMPRSS2 inhibitors for COVID-19 treatment by occupying the S1 pocket with the hallmark positively charged groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]