Search

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the “prediction model risk of bias assessment” criteria, and it has not been externally validated. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases. MethodsWe followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia. ResultsThe internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68. ConclusionsOur results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

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 patients 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.

Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to detect adverse events following immunization in a population. Whether certain methods of surveillance are more precise and unbiased in generating safety signals is unclear. Here, we synthesized information from existing literature to provide an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of epidemiologic and analytical methods used in vaccine monitoring, focusing on cohort, case-control and self-controlled designs. These designs are proposed to be evaluated in the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Event Under Surveillance-for vaccines) study because of their widespread use and potential utility. Over the past decades, there have been an increasing number of epidemiological study designs used for vaccine safety surveillance. While traditional cohort and case-control study designs remain widely used, newer, novel designs such as the self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk intervals have been developed. Each study design comes with its strengths and limitations, and the most appropriate study design will depend on availability of resources, access to records, number and distribution of cases, and availability of population coverage data. Several assumptions have to be made while using the various study designs, and while the goal is to mitigate any biases, violations of these assumptions are often still present to varying degrees. In our review, we discussed some of the potential biases (i.e., selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding bias), and ways to mitigate them. While the types of epidemiological study designs are well established, a comprehensive comparison of the analytical aspects (including method evaluation and performance metrics) of these study designs are relatively less well studied. We summarized the literature, reporting on two simulation studies, which compared the detection time, empirical power, error rate and risk estimate bias across the above-mentioned study designs. While these simulation studies provided insights on the analytic performance of each of the study designs, its applicability to real-world data remains unclear. To bridge that gap, we provided the rationale of the EUMAEUS study, with a brief description of the study design; and how the use of real-world multi-database networks can provide insights into better methods evaluation and vaccine safety surveillance.

PurposeRoutinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD.Patients and methodsWe conducted a descriptive retrospective database study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub. We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services.ResultsWe aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed.ConclusionWe constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.

ObjectiveTo characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients.Design and settingThis 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.ParticipantsTwo 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.OutcomesDemographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsCOVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension.

ObjectivePatients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza.MethodsA multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization.ResultsWe studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%).ConclusionCompared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

BackgroundWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsPatients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent.ImpactThis study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.

ObjectivesConcern has been raised in the rheumatology community regarding recent regulatory warnings that HCQ used in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic could cause acute psychiatric events. We aimed to study whether there is risk of incident depression, suicidal ideation or psychosis associated with HCQ as used for RA.MethodsWe performed a new-user cohort study using claims and electronic medical records from 10 sources and 3 countries (Germany, UK and USA). RA patients ≥18 years of age and initiating HCQ were compared with those initiating SSZ (active comparator) and followed up in the short (30 days) and long term (on treatment). Study outcomes included depression, suicide/suicidal ideation and hospitalization for psychosis. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate database-specific calibrated hazard ratios (HRs), with estimates pooled where I2

ObjectiveTo investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents.DesignMultinational network cohort study.SettingHospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea.Participants303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020.Main outcome measuresPrescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19.ResultsOf the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from

Using real-world data and past vaccination data, we conducted a large-scale experiment to quantify bias, precision and timeliness of different study designs to estimate historical background (expected) compared to post-vaccination (observed) rates of safety events for several vaccines. We used negative (not causally related) and positive control outcomes. The latter were synthetically generated true safety signals with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.5 to 4. Observed vs. expected analysis using within-database historical background rates is a sensitive but unspecific method for the identification of potential vaccine safety signals. Despite good discrimination, most analyses showed a tendency to overestimate risks, with 20%-100% type 1 error, but low (0% to 20%) type 2 error in the large databases included in our study. Efforts to improve the comparability of background and post-vaccine rates, including age-sex adjustment and anchoring background rates around a visit, reduced type 1 error and improved precision but residual systematic error persisted. Additionally, empirical calibration dramatically reduced type 1 to nominal but came at the cost of increasing type 2 error.

Comorbid conditions appear to be common among individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but estimates of prevalence vary and little is known about the prior medication use of patients. Here, we describe the characteristics of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 and compare them with influenza patients. We include 34,128 (US: 8362, South Korea: 7341, Spain: 18,425) COVID-19 patients, summarising between 4811 and 11,643 unique aggregate characteristics. COVID-19 patients have been majority male in the US and Spain, but predominantly female in South Korea. Age profiles vary across data sources. Compared to 84,585 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, COVID-19 patients have more typically been male, younger, and with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. While protecting groups vulnerable to influenza is likely a useful starting point in the response to COVID-19, strategies will likely need to be broadened to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals being hospitalised with COVID-19.

Aim: To gain staff feedback on the implementation and impact of a novel ambulatory monitoring system to support coronavirus patient management on an isolation ward. Design: Qualitative service evaluation. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 15 multidisciplinary isolation ward staff in the United Kingdom between July 2020 and May 2021. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Adopting Innovation to Assist Patient Safety was identified as the overriding theme. Three interlinked sub‐themes represent facets of how the system supported patient safety. Patient Selection was developed throughout the pandemic, as clinical staff became more confident in choosing which patients would benefit most. Trust In the System described how nurses coped with discrepancies between the ambulatory system and ward observation machines. Finally, Resource Management examined how, once trust was built, staff perceived the ambulatory system assisted with caseload management. This supported efficient personal protective equipment resource use by reducing the number of isolation room entries. Despite these reported benefits, face‐to‐face contact was still highly valued, despite the risk of coronavirus exposure. Conclusion: Hospital wards should consider using ambulatory monitoring systems to support caseload management and patient safety. Patients in isolation rooms or at high risk of deterioration may particularly benefit from this additional monitoring. However, these systems should be seen as an adjunct to nursing care, not a replacement. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Nurses valued ambulatory monitoring as a means of ensuring the safety of patients at risk of deterioration and prioritizing their workload. Impact: The findings of this research will be useful to all those developing or considering implementation of ambulatory monitoring systems in hospital wards. Reporting Method: This manuscript follows the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines with inclusion of relevant SQUIRE guidelines for reporting quality improvement. Patient or Public Contribution: No Patient or Public Contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma. Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions. Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6–8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7–6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2–18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0–6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6–22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8–2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8–20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15–30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients. Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients. KEY MESSAGES Asthma prevalence in COVID-19 patients varied internationally (5.2–20.5%).The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation with COVID-19 in diagnosed and hospitalized patients was low.Comorbidities were common in COVID-19 patients with asthma. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]