RESUMEN
ImportanceThe role of COVID-19 vaccination on the mental health of the general population remains poorly understood. ObjectiveTo assess the short-term change of depressive and anxiety symptoms in relation to COVID-19 vaccination among Swedish adults. DesignA prospective cohort study with monthly data collections on self-reported depressive and anxiety symptoms from December 2020 to October 2021 and COVID-19 vaccination from July to October 2021. SettingThe Omtanke2020 Study, Sweden. Participants7,925 participants of the Omtanke2020 study with complete data on depressive and anxiety symptoms and vaccination status. Intervention(s) or Exposure(s)Receiving the first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Main outcomes(s) and Measure(s)Binary measures of depression (PHQ-9, cut-off [≥]10) and anxiety (GAD-7, cut-off [≥]10) one month before the first dose, one month after the first dose, and, if applicable, one month after the second dose. For individuals not vaccinated or chose to not report vaccination status (unvaccinated individuals), we selected three monthly measures of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 with 2-month intervals in-between based on data availability. Results5,079 (64.1%) individuals received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, 1,977 (24.9%) received one dose, 305 (3.9%) were not vaccinated, and 564 (7.1%) chose not to report vaccination status. There was a lower prevalence of depression and anxiety among vaccinated, compared with unvaccinated, individuals, especially after the second dose. Among individuals receiving two doses of vaccine, the prevalence of depression and anxiety was lower after both first (aRR=0.82, 95%CI 0.76-0.88 for depression; aRR=0.81, 95%CI 0.73-0.89 for anxiety) and second (aRR=0.79, 95%CI 0.73-0.85 for depression; aRR=0.73, 95%CI 0.66-0.81 for anxiety) dose, compared with before vaccination. Similar results were observed among individuals receiving only one dose (aRR=0.76, 95%CI 0.68-0.84 for depression; aRR=0.82, 95%CI 0.72-0.94 for anxiety, comparing after first dose to before vaccination). These results were independent of age, sex, recruitment type, body mass index, smoking, relationship status, history of psychiatric disorder, number of comorbidities, COVID-19 infection status, and seasonality. Conclusions and RelevanceWe observed a positive short-term change in depressive and anxiety symptoms among adults receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in the current pandemic. Key pointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIs COVID-19 vaccination associated with a short-term change in mental health? FindingsThis longitudinal study included 7,925 Swedish adults with self-reported COVID-19 vaccination and symptoms of mental health responding from December 2020 to October 2021. The prevalence of depressive or anxiety symptoms was lower one month after vaccination compared to one month before vaccination. The effect size was greater among individuals receiving two doses of vaccine, compared with those receiving only one dose. MeaningReceiving vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with short-term improvement in mental health.
RESUMEN
BackgroundWith large-scale COVID-19 vaccination implemented world-wide, safety signals needing rapid evaluation will emerge. We report population-based, age- and-sex-specific background incidence rates of conditions representing potential vaccine adverse events of special interest (AESI) for the Swedish general population using register data. MethodsWe studied an age/sex-stratified random 10% sample of the Swedish population on 1 Jan 2020, followed for AESI outcomes during 1 year, as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and developed, before the start of vaccinations. We selected and defined the following outcomes based on information from regulatory authorities, large-scale adverse events initiatives and previous studies: aseptic meningitis, febrile seizure, Kawasaki syndrome, MISC, post-infectious arthritis, arthritis, myocarditis, ARDS, myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, kidney failure, liver failure, erythema multiforme, disseminated intravascular coagulation, autoimmune thyroiditis, and appendicitis. We calculated incidence rates stratified by age, sex and time period (quarters of 2020), and classified them using Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) categories: very common, common, uncommon, rare, or very rare. ResultsWe included 972,723 study subjects, representing the Swedish national population on 1 Jan 2020. We found that AESI incidence rates vary greatly by age and in some cases sex. Several common AESIs showed expected increase with age, while some (e.g. appendicitis, aseptic meningitis, autoimmune thyroiditis, Kawasaki syndrome and MISC) were more common in young people, and others exhibited a flatter age pattern (e.g. myocarditis, DIC and erythema multiforme). Consequently, the CIOMS classification for AESIs varied widely according to age. Considerable variability was suggested for some AESI rates across the 4 quarters of 2020, potentially related to pandemic waves, seasonal variation, healthcare system overload or other healthcare delivery effects. ConclusionAge, sex, and timing of rates are important to consider when background AESI rates are compared to corresponding rates observed with COVID-19 vaccines.
RESUMEN
PurposeWe aimed to describe the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer with COVID-19 from March to June 2020. Secondly, 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 healthcare databases from Spain and the US, 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 2017-2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes. ResultsWe included 118,155 patients with a cancer history in the COVID-19 diagnosed and 41,939 in the COVID-19 hospitalized cohorts. The most frequent cancer subtypes were prostate and breast cancer (range: 5-19% and 1-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematological malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkins lymphoma being among the 5 most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were more frequently aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 8% to 14% and from 18% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n=242,960) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events. ConclusionPatients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 have advanced age, multiple comorbidities, and a high occurence of COVID-19-related events. Additionaly, hematological malignancies were frequent in these patients.This observational study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and future etiological studies.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who undergo dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). DesignA network cohort study. SettingSix databases from the United States containing routinely-collected patient data: HealthVerity, Premier, IQVIA Open Claims, Optum EHR, Optum SES, and VA-OMOP. PatientsPatients hospitalized with a clinical diagnosis or a positive test result for COVID-19. InterventionsDialysis, tracheostomy, and ECMO. Measurements and Main Results240,392 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were included (22,887 from HealthVerity, 139,971 from IQVIA Open Claims, 29,061 from Optum EHR, 4,336 from OPTUM SES, 36,019 from Premier, and 8,118 from VA-OMOP). Across the six databases, 9,703 (4.04% [95% CI: 3.96% to 4.11%]) patients received dialysis, 1,681 (0.70% [0.67% to 0.73%]) had a tracheostomy, and 398 (0.17% [95% CI: 0.15% to 0.18%]) patients underwent ECMO over the 30 days following hospitalization. Use of ECMO was generally concentrated among patients who were younger, male, and with fewer comorbidities except for obesity. Tracheostomy was used for a similar proportion of patients regardless of age, sex, or comorbidity. While dialysis was used for a similar proportion among younger and older patients, it was more frequent among male patients and among those with chronic kidney disease. ConclusionUse of dialysis among those hospitalized with COVID-19 is high at around 4%. Although less than one percent of patients undergo tracheostomy and ECMO, the absolute numbers of patients who have undergone these interventions is substantial and can be expected to continue grow given the continuing spread of the COVID-19.
RESUMEN
ObjectivePatients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. DesignMultinational network cohort study SettingElectronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (NYC, United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea). ParticipantsAll patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included. Main outcome measures30-day complications during hospitalisation and death ResultsWe studied 133,589 patients diagnosed and 48,418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. The majority of participants were female (60.5% to 65.9%) and aged [≥]50 years. The most prevalent autoimmune conditions were psoriasis (3.5 to 32.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (3.9 to 18.9%), and vasculitis (3.3 to 17.6%). Amongst hospitalised patients, Type 1 diabetes was the most common autoimmune condition (4.8% to 7.5%) in US databases, rheumatoid arthritis in HIRA (18.9%), and psoriasis in SIDIAP-H (26.4%). Compared to 70,660 hospitalised 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% to 4.3% versus 6.3% to 24.6%). ConclusionsPatients with autoimmune diseases had high rates of respiratory complications and 30-day mortality following a hospitalization with COVID-19. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. Future studies should investigate predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune diseases. What is already known about this topicO_LIPatients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications. C_LIO_LIThere is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions. C_LI What this study addsO_LIMost people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities. C_LIO_LIPatients who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had prevalent autoimmune diseases had higher prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes as compared to those with prevalent autoimmune diseases who were diagnosed with COVID-19. C_LIO_LIA variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases. C_LIO_LIFor people with autoimmune diseases, COVID-19 hospitalisation was associated with worse outcomes and 30-day mortality compared to admission with influenza in the 2017-2018 season. C_LI
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children/adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19. Secondly, to describe health outcomes amongst children/adolescents diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza. DesignInternational network cohort. SettingReal-world data from European primary care records (France/Germany/Spain), South Korean claims and US claims and hospital databases. ParticipantsDiagnosed and/or hospitalized children/adolescents with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020; diagnosed with influenza in 2017-2018. Main outcome measuresBaseline demographics and comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), and death. ResultsA total of 55,270 children/adolescents diagnosed and 3,693 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were all more common among those hospitalized vs diagnosed with COVID-19. The most common COVID-19 symptom was fever. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%), and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8% to 37.6%), famotidine (9.0% to 28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0% to 21.4%), heparin (2.2% to 18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8% to 14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort, with undetectable (N<5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia, ARDS, and MIS-C were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. ConclusionsDespite negligible fatality, complications including pneumonia, ARDS and MIS-C were more frequent in children/adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differential diagnosis. A wide range of medications were used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19. What is already known on this topic?O_LIMost of the early COVID-19 studies were targeted at adult patients, and data concerning children and adolescents are limited. C_LIO_LIClinical manifestations of COVID-19 are generally milder in the pediatric population compared with adults. C_LIO_LIHospitalization for COVID-19 affects mostly infants, toddlers, and children with pre-existing comorbidities. C_LI What this study adds This study comprehensively characterizes a large international cohort of pediatric COVID-19 patients, and almost 2 million with previous seasonal influenza across 5 countries. Although uncommon, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) were more frequent in children and adolescents diagnosed with COVID-19 than in those with seasonal influenza. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19, and could help to differentiate pediatric COVID-19 from influenza. A plethora of medications were used during the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents, with great heterogeneity in the use of antiviral therapies as well as of adjunctive therapies.
RESUMEN
Early identification of symptoms and comorbidities most predictive of COVID-19 is critical to identify infection, guide policies to effectively contain the pandemic, and improve health systems response. Here, we characterised socio-demographics and comorbidity in 3,316,107persons tested and 219,072 persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020, and their key health outcomes in the month following the first positive test. Routine care data from primary care electronic health records (EHR) from Spain, hospital EHR from the United States (US), and claims data from South Korea and the US were used. The majority of study participants were women aged 18-65 years old. Positive/tested ratio varied greatly geographically (2.2:100 to 31.2:100) and over time (from 50:100 in February-April to 6.8:100 in May-June). Fever, cough and dyspnoea were the most common symptoms at presentation. Between 4%-38% required admission and 1-10.5% died within a month from their first positive test. Observed disparity in testing practices led to variable baseline characteristics and outcomes, both nationally (US) and internationally. Our findings highlight the importance of large scale characterization of COVID-19 international cohorts to inform planning and resource allocation including testing as countries face a second wave.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVESTo describe comorbidities, symptoms at presentation, medication use, and 30-day outcomes after a diagnosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women, in comparison to pregnant women with influenza. DESIGNMultinational network cohort SETTINGA total of 6 databases consisting of electronic medical records and claims data from France, Spain, and the United States. PARTICIPANTSPregnant women with [≥] 1 year in contributing databases, diagnosed and/or tested positive, or hospitalized with COVID-19. The influenza cohort was derived from the 2017-2018 influenza season. OUTCOMESBaseline patient characteristics, comorbidities and presenting symptoms; 30-day inpatient drug utilization, maternal complications and pregnancy-related outcomes following diagnosis/hospitalization. RESULTS8,598 women diagnosed (2,031 hospitalized) with COVID-19 were included. Hospitalized women had, compared to those diagnosed, a higher prevalence sof pre-existing comorbidities including renal impairment (2.2% diagnosed vs 5.1% hospitalized) and anemia (15.5% diagnosed vs 21.3% hospitalized). The ten most common inpatient treatments were systemic corticosteroids (29.6%), enoxaparin (24.0%), immunoglobulins (21.4%), famotidine (20.9%), azithromycin (18.1%), heparin (15.8%), ceftriaxone (7.9%), aspirin (7.0%), hydroxychloroquine (5.4%) and amoxicillin (3.5%). Compared to 27,510 women with influenza, dyspnea and anosmia were more prevalent in those with COVID-19. Women with COVID-19 had higher frequency of cesarean-section (4.4% vs 3.1%), preterm delivery (0.9% vs 0.5%), and poorer maternal outcomes: pneumonia (12.0% vs 2.7%), ARDS (4.0% vs 0.3%) and sepsis (2.1% vs 0.7%). COVID-19 fatality was negligible (N<5 in each database respectively). CONCLUSIONSComorbidities that were more prevalent with COVID-19 hospitalization (compared to COVID-19 diagnosed) in pregnancy included renal impairment and anemia. Multiple medications were used to treat pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19, some with little evidence of benefit. Anosmia and dyspnea were indicative symptoms of COVID-19 in pregnancy compared to influenza, and may aid differential diagnosis. Despite low fatality, pregnancy and maternal outcomes were worse in COVID-19 than influenza. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICO_LICompared to non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant women are less likely to experience typical COVID-19 symptoms, such as fever and myalgia. C_LIO_LIObesity, high maternal age, and comorbid hypertension and diabetes are risk factors for severe COVID-19 among pregnant women. C_LIO_LIDespite relatively high rates of pneumonia and need for oxygen supplementation, fatality rates in pregnant women with COVID-19 are generally low (<1%). C_LI WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSO_LIAlthough not often recorded, dyspnea and anosmia were more often seen in pregnant women with COVID-19 than in women with seasonal influenza, in 6 databases from 3 countries (US, France, Spain). C_LIO_LIRenal impairment and anemia were more common among hospitalized than diagnosed women with COVID-19 during pregnancy. C_LIO_LIDespite limited data on benefit-risk in pregnancy, a large number of medications were used for inpatient management of COVID-19 in pregnant women: approximately 1 in 3 received corticosteroids (some may have been given for a pregnancy-related indication rather than for COVID-19 treatment), 1 in 4 enoxaparin, and 1 in 5 immunoglobulin, famotidine and azithromycin. C_LIO_LICompared to influenza, there was a higher frequency of pregnancy-related complications (cesarean section and preterm deliveries), as well as poorer maternal outcomes (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and cardiovascular and thromboembolic events) seen in pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19. C_LI
RESUMEN
ObjectivesA plethora of medicines have been repurposed or used as adjunctive therapies for COVID-19. We characterized the utilization of medicines as prescribed in routine practice amongst patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in South Korea, China, Spain, and the USA. DesignInternational network cohort SettingHospital electronic health records from Columbia University Irving Medical Centre (NYC, USA), Stanford (CA, USA), Tufts (MA, USA), Premier (USA), Optum EHR (USA), department of veterans affairs (USA), NFHCRD (Honghu, China) and HM Hospitals (Spain); and nationwide claims from HIRA (South Korea) Participantspatients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January to June 2020 Main outcome measuresPrescription/dispensation of any medicine on or 30 days after hospital admission date AnalysesNumber and percentage of users overall and over time Results71,921 people were included: 304 from China, 2,089 from Spain, 7,599 from South Korea, and 61,929 from the USA. A total of 3,455 medicines were identified. Common repurposed medicines included hydroxychloroquine (<2% in NFHCRD to 85.4% in HM), azithromycin (4.9% in NFHCRD to 56.5% in HM), lopinavir/ritonavir (<3% in all US but 34.9% in HIRA and 56.5% in HM), and umifenovir (0% in all except 78.3% in NFHCRD). Adjunctive medicines were used with great variability, with the ten most used treatments being (in descending order): bemiparin, enoxaparin, heparin, ceftriaxone, aspirin, vitamin D, famotidine, vitamin C, dexamethasone, and metformin. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increased rapidly in use in March-April but declined steeply in May-June. ConclusionsMultiple medicines were used in the first months of COVID-19 pandemic, with substantial geographic and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed medicines. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management of COVID-19. O_TEXTBOXWhat is already known in this topicO_LIDrug repurposing is a common approach in the clinical management of novel diseases and conditions for which there are no available pharmacotherapies C_LIO_LIHydroxychloroquine was widely used in the management of COVID-19 patients during the early phases of the pandemic C_LIO_LIRecent NIH (and other) guidelines recommend the use of concomitant therapies including immune-based, antithrombotic, antibiotic and other treatments C_LI What this study addsO_LIThis study demonstrates great variability and extensive drug repurposing and utilization in the management of COVID-19 patients. C_LIO_LIA wide range of adjunctive treatments has been used, including antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists, and systemic corticosteroids. C_LIO_LIEmerging clinical data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin impacted their rise and rapid decline in use internationally C_LIO_LIConversely, the use of corticosteroids grew only in more recent months, with little use in the early stages of the pandemic (January to April) C_LI C_TEXTBOX
RESUMEN
BackgroundCOVID-19 may differentially impact people with obesity. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes of obese patients with COVID-19 to those of non-obese patients with COVID-19, or obese patients with seasonal influenza. MethodsWe conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care, and claims data from January to June 2020 from the US, Spain, and the UK. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19. We created corresponding cohorts for patients with influenza in 2017-2018. We followed patients from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of socio-demographics, prior comorbidities, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status. FindingsWe included 627 044 COVID-19 (US: 502 650, Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336) and 4 549 568 influenza (US: 4 431 801, Spain: 115 224, UK: 2543) patients. The prevalence of obesity was higher among hospitalized COVID-19 (range: 38% to 54%) than diagnosed COVID-19 (30% to 47%), or diagnosed (15% to 47%) or hospitalized (27% to 48%) influenza patients. Obese hospitalized COVID-19 patients were more often female and younger than non-obese COVID-19 patients or obese influenza patients. Obese COVID-19 patients were more likely to have prior comorbidities, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, require intensive services, or die compared to non-obese COVID-19 patients. Obese COVID-19 patients were more likely to require intensive services or die compared to obese influenza patients, despite presenting with fewer comorbidities. InterpretationWe show that obesity is more common amongst COVID-19 than influenza patients, and that obese patients present with more severe forms of COVID-19 with higher hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality than non-obese patients. These data are instrumental for guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications. FundingThe European Health Data & Evidence Network has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 806968. The JU receives support from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. This research received partial support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, and IQVIA. The University of Oxford received funding related to this work from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Investment ID INV-016201 and INV-019257). APU has received funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/K501256/1, MR/N013468/1] and Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero (FAME) (APU). VINCI [VA HSR RES 13-457] (SLD, MEM, KEL). JCEL has received funding from the Medical Research Council (MR/K501256/1) and Versus Arthritis (21605). No funders had a direct role in this study. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Clinician Scientist Award programme, NIHR, Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government, NHS, or the Department of Health, England. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSPrevious evidence suggests that obese individuals are a high risk population for COVID-19 infection and complications. We searched PubMed for articles published from December 2019 until June 2020, using terms referring to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 combined with terms for obesity. Few studies reported obesity and most of them were limited by small sample sizes and restricted to hospitalized patients. Further, they used different definitions for obesity (i.e. some reported together overweight and obesity, others only reported obesity with BMI>40kg/m2). To date, no study has provided detailed information on the characteristics of obese COVID-19 patients, such as the prevalence of comorbidities or COVID-19 related outcomes. In addition, despite the fact that COVID-19 has been often compared to seasonal influenza, there are no studies assessing whether obese patients with COVID-19 differ from obese patients with seasonal influenza. Added value of this studyWe report the largest cohort of obese patients with COVID-19 and provide information on more than 29 000 aggregate characteristics publicly available. Our findings were consistent across the participating databases and countries. We found that the prevalence of obesity is higher among COVID-19 compared to seasonal influenza patients. Obese patients with COVID-19 are more commonly female and have worse outcomes than non-obese patients. Further, they have worse outcomes than obese patients with influenza, despite presenting with fewer comorbidities. Implications of all the available evidenceOur results show that individuals with obesity present more comorbidities and worse outcomes for COVID-19 than non-obese patients. These findings may be useful in guiding clinical practice and future preventative strategies for obese individuals, as well as provide useful data to support subsequent association studies focussed on obesity and COVID-19.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is straining healthcare systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate between patients requiring hospitalization and 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 Tool and has not been externally validated. MethodsWe followed the OHDSI framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 model. We evaluated the model on two different target populations: i) 41,381 patients that have SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency room visit and ii) 9,429,285 patients that have influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency room visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0 to 30 days. In total we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the US, Europe, Australia and Asia. FindingsThe internal validation performance of the C-19 index was a c-statistic of 0.73 and 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 datasets respectively. The calibration was poor with the model under-estimating risk. When validated on 12 datasets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network the c-statistics ranged between 0.40-0.68. InterpretationThe results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 model is low for influenza cohorts, and even worse amongst COVID-19 patients in the US, 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.
RESUMEN
IntroductionAngiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could influence infection risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Observational studies to date lack pre-specification, transparency, rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalizability, with contradictory results. MethodsUsing electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Department of Veterans Affairs), we conducted a systematic cohort study with prevalent ACE, ARB, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and thiazide diuretic (THZ) users to determine relative risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and related hospitalization outcomes. The study addressed confounding through large-scale propensity score adjustment and negative control experiments. ResultsFollowing over 1.1 million antihypertensive users identified between November 2019 and January 2020, we observed no significant difference in relative COVID-19 diagnosis risk comparing ACE/ARB vs CCB/THZ monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI 0.84 - 1.14), nor any difference for mono/combination use (1.01; 0.90 - 1.15). ACE alone and ARB alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared to CCB/THZ monotherapy or mono/combination use. Directly comparing ACE vs. ARB demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACE, non-significant for monotherapy (0.85; 0.69 - 1.05) and marginally significant for mono/combination users (0.88; 0.79 - 0.99). We observed, however, no significant difference between drug-classes for COVID-19 hospitalization or pneumonia risk across all comparisons. ConclusionThere is no clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization with ACE or ARB use. Users should not discontinue or change their treatment to avoid COVID-19.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo develop and externally validate COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patients risk of hospital admission (COVER-H), requiring intensive services (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis. MethodsWe analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries. We developed and validated 3 scores using 6,869,127 patients with a general practice, emergency room, or outpatient visit with diagnosed influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The scores were validated on patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across five databases from South Korea, Spain and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death iii) death in the 30 days after index date. ResultsOverall, 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 high performance in influenza. When transported to COVID-19 cohorts, the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69-0.81, COVER-I: 0.73-0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72-0.90. Calibration was overall acceptable. ConclusionsA 9-predictor model performs well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services and fatality. The models could aid in providing reassurance for low risk patients and shield high risk patients from COVID-19 during de-confinement to reduce the virus impact on morbidity and mortality.
RESUMEN
BackgroundIn this study we phenotyped individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in depth, summarising entire medical histories, including medications, as captured in routinely collected data drawn from databases across three continents. We then compared individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 to those previously hospitalised with influenza. MethodsWe report demographics, previously recorded conditions and medication use of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the US (Columbia University Irving Medical Center [CUIMC], Premier Healthcare Database [PHD], UCHealth System Health Data Compass Database [UC HDC], and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA OMOP]), in South Korea (Health Insurance Review & Assessment [HIRA]), and Spain (The Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP] and HM Hospitales [HM]). These patients were then compared with patients hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19. Results34,128 (US: 8,362, South Korea: 7,341, Spain: 18,425) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 were included. Between 4,811 (HM) and 11,643 (CUIMC) unique aggregate characteristics were extracted per patient, with all summarised in an accompanying interactive website (http://evidence.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationHospitalization/). Patients were majority male in the US (CUIMC: 52%, PHD: 52%, UC HDC: 54%, VA OMOP: 94%,) and Spain (SIDIAP: 54%, HM: 60%), but were predominantly female in South Korea (HIRA: 60%). Age profiles varied across data sources. Prevalence of asthma ranged from 4% to 15%, diabetes from 13% to 43%, and hypertensive disorder from 24% to 70% across data sources. Between 14% and 33% were taking drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system in the 30 days prior to hospitalisation. Compared to 81,596 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, patients admitted with COVID-19 were more typically male, younger, and healthier, with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. ConclusionsWe provide a detailed characterisation of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Protecting groups known to be vulnerable to influenza is a useful starting point to minimize the number of hospital admissions needed for COVID-19. However, such strategies will also likely need to be broadened so as to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals hospitalised with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
BackgroundHydroxychloroquine has recently received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and is currently prescribed in combination with azithromycin for COVID-19 pneumonia. We studied the safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin. MethodsNew user cohort studies were conducted including 16 severe adverse events (SAEs). Rheumatoid arthritis patients aged 18+ and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared to those initiating sulfasalazine and followed up over 30 days. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) were conducted to further establish safety in wider populations. Separately, SAEs associated with hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin (compared to hydroxychloroquine-amoxicillin) were studied. Data comprised 14 sources of claims data or electronic medical records from Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, UK, and USA. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (CalHRs) according to drug use. Estimates were pooled where I2<40%. ResultsOverall, 956,374 and 310,350 users of hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine, and 323,122 and 351,956 users of hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine-amoxicillin were included. No excess risk of SAEs was identified when 30-day hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were compared. SCCS confirmed these findings. However, when azithromycin was added to hydroxychloroquine, we observed an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (CalHR2.19 [1.22-3.94]), chest pain/angina (CalHR 1.15 [95% CI 1.05-1.26]), and heart failure (CalHR 1.22 [95% CI 1.02-1.45]) ConclusionsShort-term hydroxychloroquine treatment is safe, but addition of azithromycin may induce heart failure and cardiovascular mortality, potentially due to synergistic effects on QT length. We call for caution if such combination is to be used in the management of Covid-19. Trial registration numberRegistered with EU PAS; Reference number EUPAS34497 (http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=34498). The full study protocol and analysis source code can be found at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Covid19EstimationHydroxychloroquine. Funding sourcesThis research received partial support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and Senior Research Fellowship (DPA), US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, and by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [grant number: HI16C0992]. Personal funding included Versus Arthritis [21605] (JL), MRC-DTP [MR/K501256/1] (JL), MRC and FAME (APU). The European Health Data & Evidence Network has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 806968. The JU receives support from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. No funders had a direct role in this study. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Clinician Scientist Award programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health, England.
