Search

Summary: Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified a range of symptomatic manifestations to aid in the clinical diagnosis of post-COVID conditions, herein referred to as post-acute COVID-19 symptoms. We conducted an international network cohort study to estimate the burden of these symptoms in North American, European, and Asian populations. Methods: A federated analysis was conducted including 10 databases from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Estonia, Spain, France, South Korea, and the United States, between September 1st 2020 and latest data availability (which varied from December 31st 2021 to February 28th 2023), covering primary and secondary care, nationwide registries, and claims data, all mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM). We defined two cohorts for the main analyses: a SARS-CoV-2 infection cohort [positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or rapid lateral flow test (LFT) result or clinical COVID-19 diagnosis] and a general population cohort. Individuals with less than 365 days of prior history or 120 days of follow-up were excluded. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) of the 25 WHO-proposed post-acute COVID-19 symptoms, considering symptoms that occurred ≥90 and ≤365 days after index date, excluding individuals with the respective symptoms 180 days prior to the index event. Stratified analyses were conducted by age and sex. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated comparing rates in the infected cohort versus the general population. Results from the different databases were combined using random-effects meta-analyses. Findings: 3,019,408 individuals were included in the infection cohort. 1,585,160 of them were female and 1,434,248 of them male. 929,351,505 individuals were included in the general population group. 461,195,036 of them were female and 466,022,004 of them male. The 1-year IR of any post-acute COVID-19 symptom in the COVID-19 infection cohort varied significantly across databases, from 4.4 (95% CI 3.8–5.1) per 100 person-years to 103.9 (95% CI 103.2–104.7). The five most common symptoms were joint pain (from 1.6 (95% CI 1.3–1.9) to 14.3 (95% CI 14.1–14.6)), abdominal pain (from 0.3 (95% CI 0.1–0.5) to 9.9 (95% CI 9.7–10.1)), gastrointestinal issues (from 0.6 (95% CI 0.4–0.9) to 13.3 (95% CI 13.1–13.6)), cough (from 0.3 (95% CI 0.2–0.5) to 9.1 (95% CI 8.9–9.3)), and anxiety (from 0.8 (95% CI 0.6–1.2) to 11.4 (95% CI 11.2–11.6)); whereas muscle spasms (from 0.01 (95% CI 0.008–0.2) to 1.7 (95% CI 1.6–1.8)), pins and needles (from 0.05 (95% CI 0.03–0.0.9) to 1.5 (95% CI 1.4–1.6)), memory issues (from 0.03 (95% CI 0.02–0.06) to 0.8 (95% CI 0.7–0.8)), cognitive dysfunction (from 0.007 (95% CI 0.004–0.01) to 0.6 (95% CI 0.4–0.8)), and altered smell and/or taste (from 0.04 (95% CI 0.03–0.04) to 0.7 (95% CI 0.6–0.8)) were least common. Incidence rates of any post-acute COVID-19 symptoms generally increased with age, with certain symptoms peaking in middle-aged adults (anxiety, depressive disorders, headache, altered smell and taste) and others in pre-school children (gastrointestinal issues and cough). Females had higher incidence rates for most symptoms. Based on the random-effects model, the infected cohort had a higher incidence of any post-acute COVID-19 symptom than the general population, with a meta-analytic incidence rate ratio (meta-IRR) of 1.4 (1–2). A similar pattern was seen for all individual symptoms. The highest meta-IRRs were depressive disorder, 2.6 (1.7–3.9); anxiety, 2.3 (1.4–3.8); allergy, 2.1 (1.7–2.8) and sleep disorders, 2.1 (1.5–2.6). The meta-IRR for altered smell and/or taste was 1.9 (1.3–2.8). Interpretation: Post-acute COVID-19 symptoms, as listed by the WHO, were commonly observed following COVID-19 infection. However, even after standardising research methods, there was significant heterogeneity in the incidence rates from different healthcare settings and geographical locations. This is the first international study of the epidemiology of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms using the WHO-listed symptoms. Its findings contibute to understand the epidemiology of this condition from a multinational approach. Limitations of this study include the lack of consensus of the post-acute COVID-19 definition, as well as the difficulty to capture the impact on daily life of the post-acute COVID-19 symptoms in the available datasets. Funding: This work has been funded by the European Health Data Evidence Network (EHDEN) through an Evidence Generation Fund Grant and by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).

Summary: Identifying causal genes underlying genome-wide association studies (GWASs) is a fundamental problem in human genetics. Although colocalization with gene expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) is often used to prioritize GWAS target genes, systematic benchmarking has been limited due to unavailability of large ground truth datasets. Here, we re-analyzed plasma protein QTL data from 3,301 individuals of the INTERVAL cohort together with 131 eQTL Catalog datasets. Focusing on variants located within or close to the affected protein identified 793 proteins with at least one cis-pQTL where we could assume that the most likely causal gene was the gene coding for the protein. We then benchmarked the ability of cis-eQTLs to recover these causal genes by comparing three Bayesian colocalization methods (coloc.susie, coloc.abf, and CLPP) and five Mendelian randomization (MR) approaches (three varieties of inverse-variance weighted MR, MR-RAPS, and MRLocus). We found that assigning fine-mapped pQTLs to their closest protein coding genes outperformed all colocalization methods regarding both precision (71.9%) and recall (76.9%). Furthermore, the colocalization method with the highest recall (coloc.susie - 46.3%) also had the lowest precision (45.1%). Combining evidence from multiple conditionally distinct colocalizing QTLs with MR increased precision to 81%, but this was accompanied by a large reduction in recall to 7.1%. Furthermore, the choice of the MR method greatly affected performance, with the standard inverse-variance-weighted MR often producing many false positives. Our results highlight that linking GWAS variants to target genes remains challenging with eQTL evidence alone, and prioritizing novel targets requires triangulation of evidence from multiple sources.

BackgroundAdverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population.MethodsA multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases.FindingsSubstantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism.InterpretationOur findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term.FundingNone.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

Background There is a lack of knowledge on how patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are globally treated in the real world, especially with regard to the initial pharmacological treatment of newly diagnosed patients and the different treatment trajectories. This knowledge is important to monitor and improve clinical practice.Methods This retrospective cohort study aims to characterise treatments using data from four claims (drug dispensing) and four electronic health record (EHR; drug prescriptions) databases across six countries and three continents, encompassing 1.3 million patients with asthma or COPD. We analysed treatment trajectories at drug class level from first diagnosis and visualised these in sunburst plots.Results In four countries (USA, UK, Spain and the Netherlands), most adults with asthma initiate treatment with short-acting ß2 agonists monotherapy (20.8%–47.4% of first-line treatments). For COPD, the most frequent first-line treatment varies by country. The largest percentages of untreated patients (for asthma and COPD) were found in claims databases (14.5%–33.2% for asthma and 27.0%–52.2% for COPD) from the USA as compared with EHR databases (6.9%–15.2% for asthma and 4.4%–17.5% for COPD) from European countries. The treatment trajectories showed step-up as well as step-down in treatments.Conclusion Real-world data from claims and EHRs indicate that first-line treatments of asthma and COPD vary widely across countries. We found evidence of a stepwise approach in the pharmacological treatment of asthma and COPD, suggesting that treatments may be tailored to patients’ needs.

Abstract A large proportion of the world’s population has some form of immunity against SARS-CoV-2, through either infection (‘natural’), vaccination or both (‘hybrid’). This retrospective cohort study used data on SARS-CoV-2, vaccination, and hospitalization from national health system from February 2020 to June 2022 and Cox regression modelling to compare those with natural immunity to those with no (Cohort1, n = 94,982), hybrid (Cohort2, n = 47,342), and vaccine (Cohort3, n = 254,920) immunity. In Cohort 1, those with natural immunity were at lower risk for infection during the Delta (aHR 0.17, 95%CI 0.15–0.18) and higher risk (aHR 1.24, 95%CI 1.18–1.32) during the Omicron period than those with no immunity. Natural immunity conferred substantial protection against COVID-19-hospitalization. Cohort 2—in comparison to natural immunity hybrid immunity offered strong protection during the Delta (aHR 0.61, 95%CI 0.46–0.80) but not the Omicron (aHR 1.05, 95%CI 0.93–1.1) period. COVID-19-hospitalization was extremely rare among individuals with hybrid immunity. In Cohort 3, individuals with vaccine-induced immunity were at higher risk than those with natural immunity for infection (Delta aHR 4.90, 95%CI 4.48–5.36; Omicron 1.13, 95%CI 1.06–1.21) and hospitalization (Delta aHR 7.19, 95%CI 4.02–12.84). These results show that risk of infection and severe COVID-19 are driven by personal immunity history and the variant of SARS-CoV-2 causing infection.

Abstract SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is currently the mainstay in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are still people among vaccinated individuals suffering from severe forms of the disease. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on data from nationwide e-health databases. The study included 184,132 individuals who were SARS-CoV-2 infection-naive and had received at least a primary series of COVID-19 vaccination. The incidence of BTI (breakthrough infection) was 8.03 (95% CI [confidence interval] 7.95⎼8.13/10,000 person-days), and for severe COVID-19 it was 0.093 (95% CI 0.084⎼ 0.104/10,000 person-days). The protective effect of vaccination against severe COVID-19 remained constant for up to six months, and the booster dose offered an additional pronounced benefit (hospitalization aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19⎼0.54). The risk of severe COVID-19 was higher among those ≥ 50 years of age (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] 2.06, 95% CI 1.25⎼3.42) and increased constantly with every decade of life. Male sex (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 1.16⎼1.45), CCI (The Charlson Comorbidity Index) score ≥ 1 (aHR 2.09, 95% CI 1.54⎼2.83), and a range of comorbidities were associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalization. There are identifiable subgroups of COVID-19-vaccinated individuals at high risk of hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This information is crucial to driving vaccination programs and planning treatment strategies.

Abstract COVID-19 and other acute respiratory viruses can have a long-term impact on health. We aimed to assess the common features and differences in the post-acute phase of COVID-19 compared with other non-chronic respiratory infections (RESP) using population-based electronic health data. We applied the self-controlled case series method where prescription drugs and health care utilisation were used as indicators of health outcomes during the six-month-long post-acute period. The incidence rate ratios of COVID-19 and RESP groups were compared. The analysis included 146 314 individuals. Out of 5452 drugs analysed, 14 had increased administration after COVID-19 with drugs for cardiovascular diseases (trimetazidine, metoprolol, rosuvastatin) and psychotropic drugs (alprazolam, zolpidem, melatonin) being most prevalent. The health impact of COVID-19 was more apparent among females and individuals with non-severe COVID-19. The increased risk of exacerbating pre-existing conditions was observed for the COVID-19 group. COVID-19 vaccination did not have effect on drug prescriptions but lowered the health care utilisation during post-acute period. Compared with RESP, COVID-19 increased the use of outpatient services during the post-infection period. The long-term negative impact of COVID-19 on life quality must be acknowledged, and supportive health care and public health services provided.

Background and objectives: With the proliferation of real-world or observational health data, there is increasing interest in studying treatment trajectories. The real-life treatment trajectories can be complex, and one has to simplify the patterns to draw any conclusions; however, oversimplification will cause the loss of essential details. Thus, the visualization challenge is to strike a balance between the two extremes. Methods: We have implemented the observation of treatment trajectories starting from cohort definitions in cooperation with medical specialists, data processing, and then generating the interactive visualizations and detailed data tables derived from input data within an open-source R package as a Shiny dashboard. The created R package called TrajectoryViz (https://github.com/HealthInformaticsUT/TrajectoryViz) enables reproducible visual analysis and visual content generation for various data investigations and explanations. Results: We illustrate the use of the tool by assessing the sequence of events present within the data of cervical cancer prevention pathways, as well as the proportions of timely follow-up procedure events. Conclusion: Building a toolset to access, manage, and analyze observational health data enables more accessible visual analysis of complicated data, adding time dimension to otherwise simplified event sequences that make up trajectories.

De nombreuses classes visitent chaque année avec leur enseignant·e le site d’Augusta Raurica. Le présent article traite dans sa deuxième partie d’une activité en particulier réalisée lors de la visite d’un groupe composé de plusieurs classes : les élèves plus âgés ont aidé les plus jeunes à déchiffrer l’épitaphe du fondateur de la colonie romaine. Le scénario à la base de cette activité est présenté dans la première partie, tout comme les notions et concepts didactiques sur lesquels il se fonde.

Abstract Microbiome studies of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have achieved a scale for meta-analysis of dysbioses among populations. To enable microbial community meta-analyses generally, we develop MMUPHin for normalization, statistical meta-analysis, and population structure discovery using microbial taxonomic and functional profiles. Applying it to ten IBD cohorts, we identify consistent associations, including novel taxa such as Acinetobacter and Turicibacter, and additional exposure and interaction effects. A single gradient of dysbiosis severity is favored over discrete types to summarize IBD microbiome population structure. These results provide a benchmark for characterization of IBD and a framework for meta-analysis of any microbial communities.

Summary: Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

This paper develops policy measures for a “just transition” based on a case study conducted in Germany’s Rhineland lignite mining district. Semi-structured guided interviews served as the methodological approach. Expert interviews were conducted with representatives of citizen initiatives, trade unions and the Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia. The results reveal the need for policy measures in different areas: First, employees working for subcontractors of the lignite industry have a high risk of losing their jobs because there are virtually no support policies for them. Second, there needs to be more input by civic initiatives regarding the process of structural change. And last, land needs to be prevented from becoming a scarce resource in the Rhineland area due to current mining legislation. We use an actor-centred institutionalist framework to derive governance approaches in line with the needs of various stakeholders.

Background Light transmission aggregometry (LTA) is considered the gold standard for the evaluation of platelet function but is labor-intensive and involves numerous manual steps. Automation may contribute to standardization. Here, we evaluate the performance characteristics of a new automated instrument, Thrombomate XRA (TXRA), and compare it against a manual instrument (PAP-8). Materials and Methods Leftover blood samples from blood donors or patients were tested in parallel with identical reagents and in identical concentrations both manually using PAP-8 and automated on the TXRA. In addition to precision and method comparison, an additional evaluation was performed on the TXRA against “virtual” platelet-poor plasma (VPPP) based on artificial intelligence. The main focus was on comparing the maximum aggregation (MA%) values. Results Precision for MA% ranged from 1.4 to 4.6% on TXRA for all reagents. Normal ranges for 100 healthy blood donors on both instruments were in a similar range for all reagents, with a tendency to slightly higher values with TXRA. Most agonists resulted in normally distributed MA%. Comparing 47 patient samples on both devices showed a good correlation for both slope and MA% with some differences in individual samples with epinephrine and TRAP. Correlation between the TXRA measurement against PPP and “virtual” PPP demonstrated excellent correlation. Reaction signatures of both devices were very similar. Conclusion TXRA provides reproducible LTA results that correlate with an established manual method when tested against PPP or VPPP. Its ability to perform LTA only from platelet-rich plasma without requiring autologous PPP simplifies LTA. TXRA is an important step not only for further standardizing LTA but also for a more widespread use of this important method.

L’Homo digitalis constitue-t-il une évolution par rapport à l’Homo sapiens ou en est-il une partie ? Voilà la question que pose cette contribution multilingue écrite à six mains. L’introduction revient sur le terme Homo digitalis et l’analyse à l’aide de la compétence plurilingue pluriculturelle, dont les trois parties suivantes démontrent l’importance à côté de celle de la littératie pour l’exploitation de documents authentiques. La première partie traite du recours aux documents visuels numérisés en classe de grec ancien ; la deuxième d’inscriptions latines et de leur exploitation en classe grâce à l’image numérisée ; la troisième de cinéma italien et de divers supports numérisés qui permettent de l’intégrer dans la formation des élèves. La conclusion propose une réponse à la question initiale.