Search

COVID-19 patients are at an increased risk of thrombosis and various anticoagulants are being used in patient management without an established standard-of-care. Here, we analyze hospitalized and ICU patient outcomes from the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) registry. We find that severe COVID patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality-rate (311 deceased patients out of 760 total patients = 41%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (214 deceased patients out of 1,432 total patients = 15%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.74 (95% C.I.: [2.35, 3.18]; p-value: 1.4e-41). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including: demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an amplified mortality rate of 39% (215 of 555) for unfractionated heparin vs. 23% (119 of 522) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.70 (95% C.I.: [1.40, 2.05]; p-value: 2.5e-7). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to those administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury (227 of 642 [35%] vs. 156 of 608 [26%] respectively, adjusted p-value 0.0019), acute cardiac injury (40 of 642 [6.2%] vs. 15 of 608 [2.5%] respectively, adjusted p-value 0.01), septic shock (118 of 642 [18%] vs. 73 of 608 [12%] respectively, adjusted p-value 0.01), and anemia (81 of 642 [13%] vs. 46 of 608 [7.6%] respectively, adjusted p-value 0.02). Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (375 of 1,203 [31%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (595 of 2,488 [24%]), for a risk ratio of 1.3 (95% C.I.: [1.17, 1.45], adjusted p-value: 1.6e-5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (272 of 959 [28%] for Black/African American vs. 213 of 959 [22%] for White/Caucasian, adjusted p-value: 0.01, relative risk: 1.28, 95% C.I.: [1.09, 1.49]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow-up prospective research in order to elucidate potential socioeconomic, racial, or other disparities underlying the use of anticoagulants to treat severe COVID patients.

Background Two US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), have demonstrated high efficacy in large phase 3 randomized clinical trials. It is important to assess their effectiveness in a real-world setting. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 136,532 individuals in the Mayo Clinic health system (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) with PCR testing data between December 1, 2020 and April 20, 2021. We compared clinical outcomes for a vaccinated cohort of 68,266 individuals who received at least one dose of either vaccine (nBNT162b2 = 51,795; nmRNA-1273 = 16,471) and an unvaccinated control cohort of 68,266 individuals propensity matched based on relevant demographic, clinical, and geographic features. We estimated real-world vaccine effectiveness by comparing incidence rates of positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR testing and COVID-19-associated hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission starting 7 days after the second vaccine dose. Findings The real-world vaccine effectiveness of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.4%–89.1%) for BNT162b2 and 93.3% (95% CI: 85.7%–97.4%) for mRNA-1273. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 88.8% (95% CI: 75.5%–95.7%) and 86.0% (95% CI: 71.6%–93.9%) effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization. Both vaccines were 100% effective (95% CIBNT162b2: 51.4%–100%; 95% CImRNA-1273: 43.3%–100%) in preventing COVID-19-associated ICU admission. Conclusions BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are effective in a real-world setting and are associated with reduced rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and decreased burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system. Funding This study was funded by nference., Graphical abstract, Context and significance This is a study of the COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. Although these vaccines have been shown to be effective in clinical trials, it is important to confirm that they work well in practice. The results from this study show that these vaccines are effective in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, COVID-19-associated hospitalization, and COVID-19-associated ICU admission. As one of the largest real-world evidence studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in the United States to date, this study provides strong evidence that COVID-19 vaccines work well in practice., Pawlowski et al. assess the real-world effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines among 136,532 individuals. They compare infection, hospitalization, and ICU admission rates between vaccinated and propensity-matched unvaccinated individuals. They find that both vaccines protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19.

Background As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign unfolds, it is important to continuously assess the real-world safety of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized vaccines. Curation of large-scale electronic health records (EHRs) enables near-real-time safety evaluations that were not previously possible. Methods In this retrospective study, we deployed deep neural networks over a large EHR system to automatically curate the adverse effects mentioned by physicians in over 1.2 million clinical notes between December 1, 2020 and April 20, 2021. We compared notes from 68,266 individuals who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 (n = 51,795) or mRNA-1273 (n = 16,471) to notes from 68,266 unvaccinated individuals who were matched by demographic, geographic, and clinical features. Findings Individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 had a higher rate of return to the clinic, but not the emergency department, after both doses compared to unvaccinated controls. The most frequently documented adverse effects within 7 days of each vaccine dose included myalgia, headache, and fatigue, but the rates of EHR documentation for each side effect were remarkably low compared to those derived from active solicitation during clinical trials. Severe events, including anaphylaxis, facial paralysis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, were rare and occurred at similar frequencies in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Conclusions This analysis of vaccine-related adverse effects from over 1.2 million EHR notes of more than 130,000 individuals reaffirms the safety and tolerability of the FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in practice. Funding This study was funded by nference., Graphical abstract, Context and significance This is a study of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. Although these vaccines have been shown to be safe and tolerated in clinical trials, it is important to confirm their safety profiles in practice. The results from this study show that individuals receiving these vaccines are likely to experience muscle and joint soreness, but they are not more likely to seek out emergent clinical care or experience severe medical events than unvaccinated individuals. As one of the largest real-world safety studies of COVID-19 vaccines to date, these data reinforce that we should continue expanding efforts to deliver more vaccines with high confidence in their safety., McMurry et al. assess the real-world safety of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines. Using natural language processing, they compare the rates of specified adverse effects between 68,266 vaccinated individuals and 68,266 matched unvaccinated individuals. They find that both vaccines are safe and tolerated in clinical practice.

Multiple clinical studies are ongoing to assess whether existing vaccines may afford protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection through trained immunity. In this exploratory study, we analyze immunization records from 137,037 individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. We find that polio, Hemophilus influenzae type-B (HIB), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), geriatric flu, and hepatitis A / hepatitis B (HepA-HepB) vaccines administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years are associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, even after adjusting for geographic SARS-CoV-2 incidence and testing rates, demographics, comorbidities, and number of other vaccinations. Furthermore, age, race/ethnicity, and blood group stratified analyses reveal significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 rate among black individuals who have taken the PCV13 vaccine, with relative risk of 0.45 at the 5 year time horizon (n: 653, 95% CI: (0.32, 0.64), p-value: 6.9e-05). These findings suggest that additional pre-clinical and clinical studies are warranted to assess the protective effects of existing non-COVID-19 vaccines and explore underlying immunologic mechanisms. We note that the findings in this study are preliminary and are subject to change as more data becomes available and as further analysis is conducted.

Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood.To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021.Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273.Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose.Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01).This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

Temporal inference from laboratory testing results and triangulation with clinical outcomes extracted from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) provider notes is integral to advancing precision medicine. Here, we studied 246 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive (COVIDpos) patients and propensity-matched 2460 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative (COVIDneg) patients subjected to around 700,000 lab tests cumulatively across 194 assays. Compared to COVIDneg patients at the time of diagnostic testing, COVIDpos patients tended to have higher plasma fibrinogen levels and lower platelet counts. However, as the infection evolves, COVIDpos patients distinctively show declining fibrinogen, increasing platelet counts, and lower white blood cell counts. Augmented curation of EHRs suggests that only a minority of COVIDpos patients develop thromboembolism, and rarely, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC), with patients generally not displaying platelet reductions typical of consumptive coagulopathies. These temporal trends provide fine-grained resolution into COVID-19 associated coagulopathy (CAC) and set the stage for personalizing thromboprophylaxis.

Understanding temporal dynamics of COVID-19 patient symptoms could provide fine-grained resolution to guide clinical decision-making. Here, we use deep neural networks over an institution-wide platform for the augmented curation of clinical notes from 77,167 patients subjected to COVID-19 PCR testing. By contrasting Electronic Health Record (EHR)-derived symptoms of COVID-19-positive (COVIDpos; n=2,317) versus COVID-19-negative (COVIDneg; n=74,850) patients for the week preceding the PCR testing date, we identify anosmia/dysgeusia (27.1-fold), fever/chills (2.6-fold), respiratory difficulty (2.2-fold), cough (2.2-fold), myalgia/arthralgia (2-fold), and diarrhea (1.4-fold) as significantly amplified in COVIDpos over COVIDneg patients. The combination of cough and fever/chills has 4.2-fold amplification in COVIDpos patients during the week prior to PCR testing, and along with anosmia/dysgeusia, constitutes the earliest EHR-derived signature of COVID-19. This study introduces an Augmented Intelligence platform for the real-time synthesis of institutional biomedical knowledge. The platform holds tremendous potential for scaling up curation throughput, thus enabling EHR-powered early disease diagnosis.

Molecular mimicry is an evolutionary strategy adopted by viruses to exploit the host cellular machinery. We report that SARS-CoV-2 has evolved a unique S1/S2 cleavage site, absent in any previous coronavirus sequenced, resulting in the striking mimicry of an identical FURIN-cleavable peptide on the human epithelial sodium channel α-subunit (ENaC-α). Genetic alteration of ENaC-α causes aldosterone dysregulation in patients, highlighting that the FURIN site is critical for activation of ENaC. Single cell RNA-seq from 66 studies shows significant overlap between expression of ENaC-α and the viral receptor ACE2 in cell types linked to the cardiovascular-renal-pulmonary pathophysiology of COVID-19. Triangulating this cellular characterization with cleavage signatures of 178 proteases highlights proteolytic degeneracy wired into the SARS-CoV-2 lifecycle. Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 into a global pandemic may be driven in part by its targeted mimicry of ENaC-α, a protein critical for the homeostasis of airway surface liquid, whose misregulation is associated with respiratory conditions., eLife digest Viruses hijack the cellular machinery of humans to infect their cells and multiply. The virus causing the global COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, is no exception. Identifying which proteins in human cells the virus co-opts is crucial for developing new ways to diagnose, prevent and treat COVID-19 infections. SARS-CoV-2 is covered in spike-shaped proteins, which the virus uses to gain entry into cells. First, the spikes bind to a protein called ACE2, which is found on the cells that line the respiratory tract and lungs. SARS-CoV-2 then exploits enzymes called proteases to cut, or cleave, its spikes at a specific site which allows the virus to infiltrate the host cell. Proteases identify which proteins to target based on the sequence of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins – at the cleavage site. However, it remained unclear which human proteases SARS-CoV-2 co-opts and whether its cut site is similar to human proteins. Now, Anand et al. show that the spike proteins on SARS-CoV-2 may have the same sequence of amino acids at its cut site as a human epithelial channel protein called ENaC-α. This channel is important for maintaining the balance of salt and water in many organs including the lungs. Further analyses showed that ENaC-α is often found in the same types of human lung and respiratory tract cells as ACE2. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may use the same proteases that cut ENaC-α to get inside human respiratory cells. It is possible that by hijacking the cutting mechanism for ENaC-α, SARS-CoV-2 interferes with the balance of salt and water in the lungs of COVID-19 patients. This may help explain why the virus causes severe respiratory symptoms. However, more studies are needed to confirm that the proteases that cut ENaC-α also cut the spike proteins on SARS-CoV-2, and how this affects the respiratory health of COVID-19 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic demands assimilation of all biomedical knowledge to decode mechanisms of pathogenesis. Despite the recent renaissance in neural networks, a platform for the real-time synthesis of the exponentially growing biomedical literature and deep omics insights is unavailable. Here, we present the nferX platform for dynamic inference from over 45 quadrillion possible conceptual associations from unstructured text, and triangulation with insights from single-cell RNA-sequencing, bulk RNA-seq and proteomics from diverse tissue types. A hypothesis-free profiling of ACE2 suggests tongue keratinocytes, olfactory epithelial cells, airway club cells and respiratory ciliated cells as potential reservoirs of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor. We find the gut as the putative hotspot of COVID-19, where a maturation correlated transcriptional signature is shared in small intestine enterocytes among coronavirus receptors (ACE2, DPP4, ANPEP). A holistic data science platform triangulating insights from structured and unstructured data holds potential for accelerating the generation of impactful biological insights and hypotheses.

Background mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines. Methods We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing. Findings Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VEmRNA-1273: 84.1%, 95% CI: 81.6-86.2%; VEBNT162b2: 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VEmRNA-1273: 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1-80%; VEBNT162b2: 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VEmRNA-1273: 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4-95.9%; VEBNT162b2: 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (Odds Ratio: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.55-0.67). Conclusions Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions., Graphical Abstract, Puranik et al. compare the real world effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 in a population of over 180,000 vaccinated individuals. While both vaccines strongly protected against symptomatic infection, their effectiveness declined in recent months. Throughout the study period, mRNA-1273 recipients had lower rates of COVID-19 diagnosis than BNT162b2 recipients.

Importance: Continuous assessment of the effectiveness and safety of the US Food and Drug Administration-authorized SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to amplify transparency, build public trust, and ultimately improve overall health outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used large-scale longitudinal curation of electronic health records from the multistate Mayo Clinic Health System (Minnesota, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, and Iowa) to identify vaccinated and unvaccinated adults between February 27 and July 22, 2021. The unvaccinated cohort was matched on a propensity score derived from age, sex, zip code, race, ethnicity, and previous number of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction tests. The final study cohort consisted of 8889 patients in the vaccinated group and 88 898 unvaccinated matched patients. Exposure: Single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated control cohorts, measured by SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing. Results: The study was composed of 8889 vaccinated patients (4491 men [50.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.4 [16.9] years) and 88 898 unvaccinated patients (44 748 men [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [16.7] years). The incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated control cohorts was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.20-0.34) (60 of 8889 vaccinated patients vs 2236 of 88 898 unvaccinated individuals), which corresponds to an effectiveness of 73.6% (95% CI, 65.9%-79.9%) and a 3.73-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings are consistent with the clinical trial-reported efficacy of Ad26.COV2.S and the first retrospective analysis, suggesting that the vaccine is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the spread of variants such as Alpha or Delta that were not present in the original studies, and reaffirm the urgent need to continue mass vaccination efforts globally.