JBI systematic review protocol of text/opinions on how to best collect race-based data in healthcare contexts.

INTRODUCTION: Racialized population groups have worse health outcomes across the world compared with non-racialized populations. Evidence suggests that collecting race-based data should be done to mitigate racism as a barrier to health equity, and to amplify community voices, promote transparency, accountability, and shared governance of data. However, limited evidence exists on the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare contexts. This systematic review aims to synthesize opinions and texts on the best practices for collecting race-based data in healthcare contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for synthesizing text and opinions. JBI is a global leader in evidence-based healthcare and provides guidelines for systematic reviews. The search strategy will locate both published and unpublished papers in English in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2023, as well as unpublished studies and grey literature of relevant government and research websites using Google and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement methodology for systematic reviews of text and opinion will be applied, including screening and appraisal of the evidence by two independent reviewers and data extraction using JBI's Narrative, Opinion, Text, Assessment, Review Instrument. This JBI systematic review of opinion and text will address gaps in knowledge about the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare. Improvements in race-based data collection, may be related to structural policies that address racism in healthcare. Community participation may also be used to increase knowledge about collecting race-based data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review does not involve human subjects. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication in JBI evidence synthesis, conferences and media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022368270.

Forecasting COVID-19 and Analyzing the Effect of Government Interventions

We developed DELPHI, a novel epidemiological model for predicting detected cases and deaths in the prevaccination era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The model allows for underdetection of infections and effects of government interventions. We have applied DELPHI across more than 200 geographical areas since early April 2020 and recorded 6% and 11% two-week, out-of-sample median mean absolute percentage error on predicting cases and deaths, respectively. DELPHI compares favorably with other top COVID-19 epidemiological models and predicted in 2020 the large-scale epidemics in many areas, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia, months in advance. We further illustrate two downstream applications of DELPHI, enabled by the model's flexible parametric formulation of the effect of government interventions. First, we quantify the impact of government interventions on the pandemic's spread. We predict, that in the absence of any interventions, more than 14 million individuals would have perished by May 17, 2020, whereas 280,000 deaths could have been avoided if interventions around the world had started one week earlier. Furthermore, we find that mass gathering restrictions and school closings were associated with the largest average reductions in infection rates at 29.9±6.9% and 17.3±6.7% , respectively. The most stringent policy, stay at home, was associated with an average reduction in infection rate by 74.4±3.7% from baseline across countries that implemented it. In the second application, we demonstrate how DELPHI can predict future COVID-19 incidence under alternative governmental policies and discuss how Janssen Pharmaceuticals used such analyses to select the locations of its Phase III trial for its leading single-dose vaccine candidate Ad26.Cov2.S.

Data-Driven COVID-19 Vaccine Development for Janssen

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred extensive vaccine research worldwide. One crucial part of vaccine development is the phase III clinical trial that assesses the vaccine for safety and efficacy in the prevention of COVID-19. In this work, we enumerate the first successful implementation of using machine learning models to accelerate phase III vaccine trials, working with the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine to predictively select trial sites with naturally high incidence rates ("hotspots"). We develop DELPHI, a novel, accurate, policy-driven machine learning model that serves as the basis of our predictions. During the second half of 2020, the DELPHI-driven site selection identified hotspots with more than 90% accuracy, shortened trial duration by six to eight weeks (approximately 33%), and reduced enrollment by 15,000 (approximately 25%). In turn, this accelerated time to market enabled Janssen's vaccine to receive its emergency use authorization and realize its public health impact earlier than expected. Several geographies identified by DELPHI have since been the first areas to report variants of concern (e.g., Omicron in South Africa), and thus DELPHI's choice of these areas also produced early data on how the vaccine responds to new threats. Johnson & Johnson has also implemented a similar approach across its business including supporting trial site selection for other vaccine programs, modeling surgical procedure demand for its Medical Device unit, and providing guidance on return-to-work programs for its 130,000 employees. Continued application of this methodology can help shorten clinical development and change the economics of drug development by reducing the level of risk and cost associated with investing in novel therapies. This will allow Johnson & Johnson and others to enable more effective delivery of medicines to patients.

Time to diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis in indigenous peoples: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Time to diagnosis and treatment is a major factor in determining the likelihood of tuberculosis (TB) transmission and is an important area of intervention to reduce the reservoir of TB infection and prevent disease and mortality. Although Indigenous peoples experience an elevated incidence of TB, prior systematic reviews have not focused on this group. We summarize and report findings related to time to diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary TB (PTB) among Indigenous peoples, globally. METHODS: A Systematic review was performed using Ovid and PubMed databases. Articles or abstracts estimating time to diagnosis, or treatment of PTB among Indigenous peoples were included with no restriction on sample size with publication dates restricted up to 2019. Studies that focused on outbreaks, solely extrapulmonary TB alone in non-Indigenous populations were excluded. Literature was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Registration Protocol (PROSPERO): CRD42018102463. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were selected after initial assessment of 2021 records. These included Indigenous groups from five of six geographical regions outlined by the World Health Organization (all except the European Region). The range of time to treatment (24-240 days), and patient delay (20 days-2.5 years) were highly variable across studies and, in at least 60% of the studies, longer in Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous peoples. Risk factors associated with longer patient delays included poor awareness of TB, type of health provider first seen, and self-treatment. CONCLUSION: Time to diagnosis and treatment estimates for Indigenous peoples are generally within previously reported ranges from other systematic reviews focusing on the general population. However among literature examined in this systematic review that stratified by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, patient delay and time to treatment were longer compared to non-Indigenous populations in over half of the studies. Studies included were sparse and highlight an overall gap in literature important to interrupting transmission and preventing new TB cases among Indigenous peoples. Although, risk factors unique to Indigenous populations were not identified, further investigation is needed as social determinants of health among studies conducted in medium and high incidence countries may be shared across both population groups. Trial registration N/a.

Validation of a predictive model for hospital-acquired acute kidney injury with emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

We previously developed and validated a model to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and found that the variables with the highest importance included a history of chronic kidney disease and markers of inflammation. Here, we assessed model performance during periods when COVID-19 cases were attributable almost exclusively to individual variants. Electronic Health Record data were obtained from patients admitted to 19 hospitals. The outcome was hospital-acquired AKI. The model, previously built in an Inception Cohort, was evaluated in Delta and Omicron cohorts using model discrimination and calibration methods. A total of 9104 patients were included, with 5676 in the Inception Cohort, 2461 in the Delta cohort, and 967 in the Omicron cohort. The Delta Cohort was younger with fewer comorbidities, while Omicron patients had lower rates of intensive care compared with the other cohorts. AKI occurred in 13.7% of the Inception Cohort, compared with 13.8% of Delta and 14.4% of Omicron (Omnibus p = 0.84). Compared with the Inception Cohort (area under the curve (AUC): 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.80), the model showed stable discrimination in the Delta (AUC: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.75-0.80, p = 0.89) and Omicron (AUC: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.70-0.79, p = 0.37) cohorts. Estimated calibration index values were 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.07) for Inception, 0.08 (95% CI: 0.05-0.17) for Delta, and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.04-0.47) for Omicron cohorts, p = 0.10 for both Delta and Omicron vs Inception. Our model for predicting hospital-acquired AKI remained accurate in different COVID-19 variants, suggesting that risk factors for AKI have not substantially evolved across variants.

Methamphetamine use and adoption of preventive behaviors early in the COVID-19 pandemic among men who have sex with men in Los Angeles, California.

Background: Methamphetamine (MA) use increased during COVID-19, with men who have sex with men (MSM) exhibiting 3-fold greater use than heterosexual men. Understanding links between reported MA use and COVID-19 prevention behaviors among MSM can inform current transmission risks for HIV, Monkeypox, and other infectious diseases. Methods: This study assesses relationships between self-reported pattern of MA use (past six months; past two weeks) and reported COVID-19 preventive behaviors, adjusting for participant characteristics (HIV serostatus, race/ethnicity, employment and housing stability), in a cohort of ethnically diverse MSM in Los Angeles, California, between April 1 and September 30, 2020. Results: Compared to those who reported no MA use, MSM who reported weekly or more MA use in the past six months were significantly less likely to use COVID-19 protective behaviors of physical distancing (61.8% vs. 81.6%; AOR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.19, 0.81]), of avoiding public transportation (34.5% vs. 60.3%; AOR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.21, 0.83]) and of avoiding traveling overall (32.7% vs. 62.6%; AOR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.16, 0.63]). Parallel findings were observed in analyses of past two-week reported MA use and COVID-19 protective behaviors. Conclusion: Findings highlight ways in which reported MA use frequency links with avoidance of reported preventive behaviors for COVID-19 in urban diverse MSM. Findings also provide evidence to guide public health interventions in future outbreaks of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases among MSM.

An adaptive design to screen, treat, and retain people with opioid use disorders who use methamphetamine in methadone clinics (STAR-OM): study protocol of a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Methamphetamine use could jeopardize the current efforts to address opioid use disorder and HIV infection. Evidence-based behavioral interventions (EBI) are effective in reducing methamphetamine use. However, evidence on optimal combinations of EBI is limited. This protocol presents a type-1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid design to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness of adaptive methamphetamine use interventions, and their implementation barriers in Vietnam. METHOD: Design: Participants will be first randomized into two frontline interventions for 12 weeks. They will then be placed or randomized to three adaptive strategies for another 12 weeks. An economic evaluation and an ethnographic evaluation will be conducted alongside the interventions. PARTICIPANTS: We will recruit 600 participants in 20 methadone clinics. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) age 16+; (2) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) scores ≥ 10 for methamphetamine use or confirmed methamphetamine use with urine drug screening; (3) willing to provide three pieces of contact information; and (4) having a cell phone. OUTCOMES: Outcomes are measured at 13, 26, and 49 weeks and throughout the interventions. Primary outcomes include the (1) increase in HIV viral suppression, (2) reduction in HIV risk behaviors, and (3) reduction in methamphetamine use. COVID-19 response: We developed a response plan for interruptions caused by COVID-19 lockdowns to ensure data quality and intervention fidelity. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important evidence for scale-up of EBIs for methamphetamine use among methadone patients in limited-resource settings. As the EBIs will be delivered by methadone providers, they can be readily implemented if the trial demonstrates effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04706624. Registered on 13 January 2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04706624.

National and subnational short-term forecasting of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland during early 2021.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a strong interest in forecasts of the short-term development of epidemiological indicators to inform decision makers. In this study we evaluate probabilistic real-time predictions of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland for the period from January through April 2021. METHODS: We evaluate probabilistic real-time predictions of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland. These were issued by 15 different forecasting models, run by independent research teams. Moreover, we study the performance of combined ensemble forecasts. Evaluation of probabilistic forecasts is based on proper scoring rules, along with interval coverage proportions to assess calibration. The presented work is part of a pre-registered evaluation study. RESULTS: We find that many, though not all, models outperform a simple baseline model up to four weeks ahead for the considered targets. Ensemble methods show very good relative performance. The addressed time period is characterized by rather stable non-pharmaceutical interventions in both countries, making short-term predictions more straightforward than in previous periods. However, major trend changes in reported cases, like the rebound in cases due to the rise of the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant in March 2021, prove challenging to predict. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-model approaches can help to improve the performance of epidemiological forecasts. However, while death numbers can be predicted with some success based on current case and hospitalization data, predictability of case numbers remains low beyond quite short time horizons. Additional data sources including sequencing and mobility data, which were not extensively used in the present study, may help to improve performance.

We compare forecasts of weekly case and death numbers for COVID-19 in Germany and Poland based on 15 different modelling approaches. These cover the period from January to April 2021 and address numbers of cases and deaths one and two weeks into the future, along with the respective uncertainties. We find that combining different forecasts into one forecast can enable better predictions. However, case numbers over longer periods were challenging to predict. Additional data sources, such as information about different versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus present in the population, might improve forecasts in the future.

Mathematical modeling of the dynamics of COVID-19 variants of concern: Asymptotic and finite-time perspectives.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen multiple waves, in part due to the implementation and relaxation of social distancing measures by the public health authorities around the world, and also caused by the emergence of new variants of concern (VOCs) of the SARS-Cov-2 virus. As the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to transition into an endemic state, how to manage outbreaks caused by newly emerging VOCs has become one of the primary public health issues. Using mathematical modeling tools, we investigated the dynamics of VOCs, both in a general theoretical framework and based on observations from public health data of past COVID-19 waves, with the objective of understanding key factors that determine the dominance and coexistence of VOCs. Our results show that the transmissibility advantage of a new VOC is a main factor for it to become dominant. Additionally, our modeling study indicates that the initial number of people infected with the new VOC plays an important role in determining the size of the epidemic. Our results also support the evidence that public health measures targeting the newly emerging VOC taken in the early phase of its spread can limit the size of the epidemic caused by the new VOC (Wu et al., 2139Wu, Scarabel, Majeed, Bragazzi, & Orbinski, ; Wu et al., 2021).

Forecasting COVID-19 and Analyzing the Effect of Government Interventions

We developed DELPHI, a novel epidemiological model for predicting detected cases and deaths in the prevaccination era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The model allows for underdetection of infections and effects of government interventions. We have applied DELPHI across more than 200 geographical areas since early April 2020 and recorded 6% and 11% two-week, out-of-sample median mean absolute percentage error on predicting cases and deaths, respectively. DELPHI compares favorably with other top COVID-19 epidemiological models and predicted in 2020 the large-scale epidemics in many areas, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia, months in advance. We further illustrate two downstream applications of DELPHI, enabled by the model's flexible parametric formulation of the effect of government interventions. First, we quantify the impact of government interventions on the pandemic's spread. We predict, that in the absence of any interventions, more than 14 million individuals would have perished by May 17, 2020, whereas 280,000 deaths could have been avoided if interventions around the world had started one week earlier. Furthermore, we find that mass gathering restrictions and school closings were associated with the largest average reductions in infection rates at 29.9 +/- 6.9% and 17.3 +/- 6.7%, respectively. The most stringent policy, stay at home, was associated with an average reduction in infection rate by 74.4 +/- 3.7% from baseline across countries that implemented it. In the second application, we demonstrate how DELPHI can predict future COVID-19 incidence under alternative governmental policies and discuss how Janssen Pharmaceuticals used such analyses to select the locations of its Phase III trial for its leading single-dose vaccine candidate Ad26.Cov2.S.

The need for linked genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2.

Genomic surveillance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been key to the timely identification of virus variants with important public health consequences, such as variants that can transmit among and cause severe disease in both vaccinated or recovered individuals. The rapid emergence of the Omicron variant highlighted the speed with which the extent of a threat must be assessed. Rapid sequencing and public health institutions' openness to sharing sequence data internationally give an unprecedented opportunity to do this; however, assessing the epidemiological and clinical properties of any new variant remains challenging. Here we highlight a "band of four" key data sources that can help to detect viral variants that threaten COVID-19 management: 1) genetic (virus sequence) data; 2) epidemiological and geographic data; 3) clinical and demographic data; and 4) immunization data. We emphasize the benefits that can be achieved by linking data from these sources and by combining data from these sources with virus sequence data. The considerable challenges of making genomic data available and linked with virus and patient attributes must be balanced against major consequences of not doing so, especially if new variants of concern emerge and spread without timely detection and action.

Risk Prediction for Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Rationale & Objective: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but validated, predictive models for AKI are lacking. We aimed to develop the best predictive model for AKI in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and assess its performance over time with the emergence of vaccines and the Delta variant. Study Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting & Participants: Hospitalized patients with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction result between March 1, 2020, and August 20, 2021 at 19 hospitals in Texas. Exposures: Comorbid conditions, baseline laboratory data, inflammatory biomarkers. Outcomes: AKI defined by KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) creatinine criteria. Analytical Approach: Three nested models for AKI were built in a development cohort and validated in 2 out-of-time cohorts. Model discrimination and calibration measures were compared among cohorts to assess performance over time. Results: Of 10,034 patients, 5,676, 2,917, and 1,441 were in the development, validation 1, and validation 2 cohorts, respectively, of whom 776 (13.7%), 368 (12.6%), and 179 (12.4%) developed AKI, respectively (P = 0.26). Patients in the validation cohort 2 had fewer comorbid conditions and were younger than those in the development cohort or validation cohort 1 (mean age, 54 ± 16.8 years vs 61.4 ± 17.5 and 61.7 ± 17.3 years, respectively, P < 0.001). The validation cohort 2 had higher median high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level (81.7 mg/L) versus the development cohort (74.5 mg/L; P < 0.01) and higher median ferritin level (696 ng/mL) versus both the development cohort (444 ng/mL) and validation cohort 1 (496 ng/mL; P < 0.001). The final model, which added high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, ferritin, and D-dimer levels, had an area under the curve of 0.781 (95% CI, 0.763-0.799). Compared with the development cohort, discrimination by area under the curve (validation 1: 0.785 [0.760-0.810], P = 0.79, and validation 2: 0.754 [0.716-0.795], P = 0.53) and calibration by estimated calibration index (validation 1: 0.116 [0.041-0.281], P = 0.11, and validation 2: 0.081 [0.045-0.295], P = 0.11) showed stable performance over time. Limitations: Potential billing and coding bias. Conclusions: We developed and externally validated a model to accurately predict AKI in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The performance of the model withstood changes in practice patterns and virus variants.

A wastewater-based epidemic model for SARS-CoV-2 with application to three Canadian cities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated wastewater-based surveillance, allowing public health to track the epidemic by monitoring the concentration of the genetic fingerprints of SARS-CoV-2 shed in wastewater by infected individuals. Wastewater-based surveillance for COVID-19 is still in its infancy. In particular, the quantitative link between clinical cases observed through traditional surveillance and the signals from viral concentrations in wastewater is still developing and hampers interpretation of the data and actionable public-health decisions. We present a modelling framework that includes both SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the population level and the fate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA particles in the sewage system after faecal shedding by infected persons in the population. Using our mechanistic representation of the combined clinical/wastewater system, we perform exploratory simulations to quantify the effect of surveillance effectiveness, public-health interventions and vaccination on the discordance between clinical and wastewater signals. We also apply our model to surveillance data from three Canadian cities to provide wastewater-informed estimates for the actual prevalence, the effective reproduction number and incidence forecasts. We find that wastewater-based surveillance, paired with this model, can complement clinical surveillance by supporting the estimation of key epidemiological metrics and hence better triangulate the state of an epidemic using this alternative data source.

The Impact of Quarantine and Medical Resources on the Control of COVID-19 in Wuhan based on a Household Model.

In order to understand how Wuhan curbed the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, we build a network transmission model of 123 dimensions incorporating the impact of quarantine and medical resources as well as household transmission. Using our new model, the final infection size of Wuhan is predicted to be 50,662 (95%CI: 46,234, 55,493), and the epidemic would last until April 25 (95%CI: April 23, April 29), which are consistent with the actual situation. It is shown that quarantining close contacts greatly reduces the final size and shorten the epidemic duration. The opening of Fangcang shelter hospitals reduces the final size by about 17,000. Had the number of hospital beds been sufficient when the lockdown started, the number of deaths would have been reduced by at least 54.26%. We also investigate the distribution of infectious individuals in unquarantined households of different sizes. The high-risk households are those with size from two to four before the peak time, while the households with only one member have the highest risk after the peak time. Our findings provide a reference for the prevention, mitigation and control of COVID-19 in other cities of the world.

Using dipstick urinalysis to predict development of acute kidney injury in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and may require renal replacement therapy (RRT). Dipstick urinalysis is frequently obtained, but data regarding the prognostic value of hematuria and proteinuria for kidney outcomes is scarce. METHODS: Patients with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) PCR, who had a urinalysis obtained on admission to one of 20 hospitals, were included. Nested models with degree of hematuria and proteinuria were used to predict AKI and RRT during admission. Presence of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and baseline serum creatinine were added to test improvement in model fit. RESULTS: Of 5,980 individuals, 829 (13.9%) developed an AKI during admission, and 149 (18.0%) of those with AKI received RRT. Proteinuria and hematuria degrees significantly increased with AKI severity (P < 0.001 for both). Any degree of proteinuria and hematuria was associated with an increased risk of AKI and RRT. In predictive models for AKI, presence of CKD improved the area under the curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval) to 0.73 (0.71, 0.75), P < 0.001, and adding baseline creatinine improved the AUC to 0.85 (0.83, 0.86), P < 0.001, when compared to the base model AUC using only proteinuria and hematuria, AUC = 0.64 (0.62, 0.67). In RRT models, CKD status improved the AUC to 0.78 (0.75, 0.82), P < 0.001, and baseline creatinine improved the AUC to 0.84 (0.80, 0.88), P < 0.001, compared to the base model, AUC = 0.72 (0.68, 0.76). There was no significant improvement in model discrimination when both CKD and baseline serum creatinine were included. CONCLUSIONS: Proteinuria and hematuria values on dipstick urinalysis can be utilized to predict AKI and RRT in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We derived formulas using these two readily available values to help prognosticate kidney outcomes in these patients. Furthermore, the incorporation of CKD or baseline creatinine increases the accuracy of these formulas.

Comparing reliability of ICD-10-based COVID-19 comorbidity data to manual chart review, a retrospective cross-sectional study.

International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes (ICD-10) are used to characterize cohort comorbidities. Recent literature does not demonstrate standardized extraction methods. OBJECTIVE: Compare COVID-19 cohort manual-chart-review and ICD-10-based comorbidity data; characterize the accuracy of different methods of extracting ICD-10-code-based comorbidity, including the temporal accuracy with respect to critical time points such as day of admission. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. MEASUREMENTS: ICD-10-based-data performance characteristics relative to manual-chart-review. RESULTS: Discharge billing diagnoses had a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.85; comorbidity range: 0.35-0.96). The past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.76; range: 0.44-0.87). The active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63-0.71; range: 0.47-0.71). On day of admission, the active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.54-0.63; range: 0.30-0.68)and past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43-0.53; range: 0.30-0.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ICD-10-based comorbidity data performance varies depending on comorbidity, data source, and time of retrieval; there are notable opportunities for improvement. Future researchers should clearly outline comorbidity data source and validate against manual-chart-review.