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.

OBJECTIVE: Developing accurate phenotype definitions is critical in obtaining reliable and reproducible background rates in safety research. This study aims to illustrate the differences in background incidence rates by comparing definitions for a given outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 16 data sources to systematically generate and evaluate outcomes for 13 adverse events and their overall background rates. We examined the effect of different modifications (inpatient setting, standardization of code set, and code set changes) to the computable phenotype on background incidence rates. RESULTS: Rate ratios (RRs) of the incidence rates from each computable phenotype definition varied across outcomes, with inpatient restriction showing the highest variation from 1 to 11.93. Standardization of code set RRs ranges from 1 to 1.64, and code set changes range from 1 to 2.52. DISCUSSION: The modification that has the highest impact is requiring inpatient place of service, leading to at least a 2-fold higher incidence rate in the base definition. Standardization showed almost no change when using source code variations. The strength of the effect in the inpatient restriction is highly dependent on the outcome. Changing definitions from broad to narrow showed the most variability by age/gender/database across phenotypes and less than a 2-fold increase in rate compared to the base definition. CONCLUSION: Characterization of outcomes across a network of databases yields insights into sensitivity and specificity trade-offs when definitions are altered. Outcomes should be thoroughly evaluated prior to use for background rates for their plausibility for use across a global network.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine safety surveillance commonly includes a serial testing approach with a sensitive method for signal generation and specific method for signal validation. The extent to which serial testing in real-world studies improves or hinders overall performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity remains unknown. METHODS: We assessed the overall performance of serial testing using three administrative claims and one electronic health record database. We compared type I and II errors before and after empirical calibration for historical comparator, self-controlled case series (SCCS), and the serial combination of those designs against six vaccine exposure groups with 93 negative control and 279 imputed positive control outcomes. RESULTS: The historical comparator design mostly had fewer type II errors than SCCS. SCCS had fewer type I errors than the historical comparator. Before empirical calibration, the serial combination increased specificity and decreased sensitivity. Type II errors mostly exceeded 50%. After empirical calibration, type I errors returned to nominal; sensitivity was lowest when the methods were combined. CONCLUSION: While serial combination produced fewer false-positive signals compared with the most specific method, it generated more false-negative signals compared with the most sensitive method. Using a historical comparator design followed by an SCCS analysis yielded decreased sensitivity in evaluating safety signals relative to a one-stage SCCS approach. While the current use of serial testing in vaccine surveillance may provide a practical paradigm for signal identification and triage, single epidemiological designs should be explored as valuable approaches to detecting signals.

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.

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.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.893484.].

Background: Characterization studies of COVID-19 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited in size and scope. The aim of the study is to provide a large-scale characterization of COVID-19 patients with COPD. Methods: We included thirteen databases contributing data from January-June 2020 from North America (US), Europe and Asia. We defined two cohorts of patients with COVID-19 namely a 'diagnosed' and 'hospitalized' cohort. 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 among COPD patients with COVID-19. Results: The study included 934,778 patients in the diagnosed COVID-19 cohort and 177,201 in the hospitalized COVID-19 cohort. Observed COPD prevalence in the diagnosed cohort ranged from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5-4.1%) in French data to 22.7% (95%CI 22.4-23.0) in US data, and from 1.9% (95%CI 1.6-2.2) in South Korean to 44.0% (95%CI 43.1-45.0) in US data, in the hospitalized cohorts. COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort had greater comorbidity than those in the diagnosed cohort, including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality was higher in COPD patients in the hospitalized cohort and ranged from 7.6% (95%CI 6.9-8.4) to 32.2% (95%CI 28.0-36.7) across databases. ARDS, acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmia and sepsis were the most common outcomes among hospitalized COPD patients.   Conclusion: COPD patients with COVID-19 have high levels of COVID-19-associated comorbidities and poor COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is required to identify patients with COPD at high risk of worse outcomes.

Background: Routinely collected healthcare data such as administrative claims and electronic health records (EHR) can complement clinical trials and spontaneous reports to detect previously unknown risks of vaccines, but uncertainty remains about the behavior of alternative epidemiologic designs to detect and declare a true risk early. Methods: Using three claims and one EHR database, we evaluate several variants of the case-control, comparative cohort, historical comparator, and self-controlled designs against historical vaccinations using real negative control outcomes (outcomes with no evidence to suggest that they could be caused by the vaccines) and simulated positive control outcomes. Results: Most methods show large type 1 error, often identifying false positive signals. The cohort method appears either positively or negatively biased, depending on the choice of comparator index date. Empirical calibration using effect-size estimates for negative control outcomes can bring type 1 error closer to nominal, often at the cost of increasing type 2 error. After calibration, the self-controlled case series (SCCS) design most rapidly detects small true effect sizes, while the historical comparator performs well for strong effects. Conclusion: When applying any method for vaccine safety surveillance we recommend considering the potential for systematic error, especially due to confounding, which for many designs appears to be substantial. Adjusting for age and sex alone is likely not sufficient to address differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the cohort method the choice of index date is important for the comparability of the groups. Analysis of negative control outcomes allows both quantification of the systematic error and, if desired, subsequent empirical calibration to restore type 1 error to its nominal value. In order to detect weaker signals, one may have to accept a higher type 1 error.

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

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.

BackgroundIn addition to lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), statin therapy also raises high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. Inter-individual variation in HDL-C response to statins may be partially explained by genetic variation.Methods and resultsWe performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify variants with an effect on statin-induced high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) changes. The 123 most promising signals with p

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has affected children and adolescents in several ways, including worsened mental health, improvement of asthma, and increases in diabetes ketoacidosis. Less is known about how medication use in children and adolescents has been affected by the pandemic. Objectives: To explore how the COVID‐19 pandemic affected drug utilisation in children and adolescents in Norway, Sweden, and Italy, by child age. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal drug utilisation study among all children and adolescents (<18 years old) in Norway and Sweden and a nationwide paediatric database covering 3% of the paediatric population in Italy. We conducted an interrupted time‐series analysis from January 2018 to December 2021, with March 2020 as the interruption point. Dispensing or prescription rates of antidepressants, anxiolytics, sleep medications, attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications, insulin, and asthma medications were examined. Results: The study population in January 2018 consisted of 3,455,521 children and adolescents (136,188 from Italy, 1,160,431 from Norway, and 2,158,902 from Sweden). For sleep medications and insulin, there were only minor changes in level or trend in some age groups after March 2020. For asthma medications, the pandemic was associated with an immediate decrease in dispensing in Norway and Sweden (range of change in level: −19.2 to −3.7 dispensings per 1000 person‐months), and an increasing trend in all countries afterward (range of change in trend: 0.3–6.4 dispensings per 1000 person‐months), especially for the youngest age groups. Among adolescents, the pandemic was associated with an increased trend for ADHD medications, antidepressants, and anxiolytics in Norway and Sweden, but not in Italy. Conclusions: The increasing trend of psychotropic medication dispensing, especially among adolescents after the start of the pandemic, is concerning and should be investigated further. Aside from a temporary effect on asthma medication dispensing, the pandemic did not greatly affect the dispensing of the medications investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Assessing COVID-19 risk in asthma patients is challenging due to disease heterogeneity and complexity. We hypothesized that potential risk factors for COVID-19 may differ among asthma age groups, hindering important insights when studied together. Methods: We included a population-based cohort of asthma patients from the Swedish National Airway Register (SNAR) and linked to data from several national health registers. COVID-19 outcomes included infection, hospitalization, and death from Jan 2020 until Feb 2021. Asthma patients were grouped by ages 12– 17, 18– 39, 40– 64, and ≥ 65 years. Characteristics of asthma patients with different COVID-19 outcomes were compared with those in their age-corresponding respective source population. Results: Among 201,140 asthma patients studied, 11.2% were aged 12– 17 years, 26.4% 18– 39, 37.6% 40– 64, and 24.9% ≥ 65 years. We observed 18,048 (9.0%) COVID-19 infections, 2172 (1.1%) hospitalizations, and 336 (0.2%) COVID-19 deaths. Deaths occurred only among patients aged ≥ 40. When comparing COVID-19 cases to source asthma populations by age, large differences in potential risk factors emerged, mostly for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. For ages 12– 17, these included education, employment, autoimmune, psychiatric, and depressive conditions, and use of short-acting β-agonists (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). In the 18– 39 age group, largest differences were for age, marital status, respiratory failure, anxiety, and body mass index. Ages 40– 64 displayed notable differences for sex, birth region, cancer, oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, and smoking. For those aged ≥ 65, largest differences were observed for cardiovascular comorbidities, type 1 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic conditions, and specific asthma treatments (ICS-SABA, ICS-long-acting bronchodilators (LABA)). Asthma control and lung function were important across all age groups. Conclusion: We identify distinct differences in COVID-19-related risk factors among asthma patients of different ages. This information is essential for assessing COVID-19 risk in asthma patients and for tailoring patient care and public health strategies accordingly. Plain Language Summary: Why was the study done? Asthma patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 outcomes. Asthma affects all ages, and COVID-19-related risk factors may vary with age. Investigating factors that contribute to COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality within distinct age groups of asthma patients can yield a more comprehensive understanding of the age-specific nuances of COVID-19 risk. What did the researchers do and find? We analyzed sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, prescribed medications, and clinical characteristics of asthma patients with COVID-19 in different age groups and compared them with their age-corresponding source asthma populations. Potential risk factors for COVID-19 and its outcomes differed by age group For ages 12-17, these included education, employment, autoimmune, psychiatric, and depressive conditions, and use of short-acting β-agonists (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). In the 18-39 age group, largest differences were for age, marital status, respiratory failure, anxiety, and body mass index. Ages 40-64 displayed notable differences for sex, birth region, cancer, oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, and smoking. For those aged ≥ 65, largest differences were observed for cardiovascular comorbidities, type 1 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic asthma, and specific asthma treatments (ICS-SABA, ICS-long-acting bronchodilators (LABA)). Asthma control and lung function were important across all age groups. What do these results mean? These results emphasize the importance of recognizing age-specific patterns contributing to COVID-19 risk for consideration in causal analyses. The findings also highlight the necessity for age-specific approaches in both clinical and public health interventions in managing COVID-19 in asthma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Statins effectively lower LDL cholesterol levels in large studies and the observed interindividual response variability may be partially explained by genetic variation. Here we perform a pharmacogenetic meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in studies addressing the LDL cholesterol response to statins, including up to 18,596 statin-treated subjects. We validate the most promising signals in a further 22,318 statin recipients and identify two loci, SORT1/CELSR2/PSRC1 and SLCO1B1, not previously identified in GWAS. Moreover, we confirm the previously described associations with APOE and LPA. Our findings advance the understanding of the pharmacogenetic architecture of statin response.