Methodological biases in observational hospital studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness: pitfalls and potential.

Introduction: This study aims to discuss and assess the impact of three prevalent methodological biases: competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias in real-world observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. We use a demonstrative observational data example of COVID-19 patients to assess the impact of these biases and propose potential solutions. Methods: We describe competing risks, immortal-time bias, and time-fixed confounding bias by evaluating treatment effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For our demonstrative analysis, we use observational data from the registry of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain from March 2020 to February 2021 and met our predefined inclusion criteria. We compare estimates of a single-dose, time-dependent treatment with the standard of care. We analyze the treatment effectiveness using common statistical approaches, either by ignoring or only partially accounting for the methodological biases. To address these challenges, we emulate a target trial through the clone-censor-weight approach. Results: Overlooking competing risk bias and employing the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator led to increased in-hospital death probabilities in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, in the treatment effectiveness analysis, the Kaplan-Meier estimator resulted in an in-hospital mortality of 45.6% for treated patients and 59.0% for untreated patients. In contrast, employing an emulated trial framework with the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we observed that in-hospital death probabilities were reduced to 27.9% in the "X"-treated arm and 40.1% in the non-"X"-treated arm. Immortal-time bias led to an underestimated hazard ratio of treatment. Conclusion: Overlooking competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias leads to shifted estimates of treatment effects. Applying the naïve Kaplan-Meier method resulted in the most biased results and overestimated probabilities for the primary outcome in analyses of hospital data from COVID-19 patients. This overestimation could mislead clinical decision-making. Both immortal-time bias and confounding bias must be addressed in assessments of treatment effectiveness. The trial emulation framework offers a potential solution to address all three methodological biases.

Target trial emulation with multi-state model analysis to assess treatment effectiveness using clinical COVID-19 data.

BACKGROUND: Real-world observational data are an important source of evidence on the treatment effectiveness for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness based on longitudinal data are often prone to methodological biases such as immortal time bias, confounding bias, and competing risks. METHODS: For exemplary target trial emulation, we used a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 501) in a single centre. We described the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of a single-dose treatment, emulated a trial using real-world data, and drafted a hypothetical study protocol describing the main components. To avoid immortal time and time-fixed confounding biases, we applied the clone-censor-weight technique. We set a 5-day grace period as a period of time when treatment could be initiated. We used the inverse probability of censoring weights to account for the selection bias introduced by artificial censoring. To estimate the treatment effects, we took the multi-state model approach. We considered a multi-state model with five states. The primary endpoint was defined as clinical severity status, assessed by a 5-point ordinal scale on day 30. Differences between the treatment group and standard of care treatment group were calculated using a proportional odds model and shown as odds ratios. Additionally, the weighted cause-specific hazards and transition probabilities for each treatment arm were presented. RESULTS: Our study demonstrates that trial emulation with a multi-state model analysis is a suitable approach to address observational data limitations, evaluate treatment effects on clinically heterogeneous in-hospital death and discharge alive endpoints, and consider the intermediate state of admission to ICU. The multi-state model analysis allows us to summarize results using stacked probability plots that make it easier to interpret results. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the emulated target trial approach to multi-state model analysis complements treatment effectiveness analysis by gaining information on competing events. Combining two methodologies offers an option to address immortal time bias, confounding bias, and competing risk events. This methodological approach can provide additional insight for decision-making, particularly when data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are unavailable.

Target Trial Emulation Using Hospital-Based Observational Data: Demonstration and Application in COVID-19.

Methodological biases are common in observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. The objective of this study is to emulate a target trial in a competing risks setting using hospital-based observational data. We extend established methodology accounting for immortal time bias and time-fixed confounding biases to a setting where no survival information beyond hospital discharge is available: a condition common to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research data. This exemplary study includes a cohort of 618 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We describe methodological opportunities and challenges that cannot be overcome applying traditional statistical methods. We demonstrate the practical implementation of this trial emulation approach via clone-censor-weight techniques. We undertake a competing risk analysis, reporting the cause-specific cumulative hazards and cumulative incidence probabilities. Our analysis demonstrates that a target trial emulation framework can be extended to account for competing risks in COVID-19 hospital studies. In our analysis, we avoid immortal time bias, time-fixed confounding bias, and competing risks bias simultaneously. Choosing the length of the grace period is justified from a clinical perspective and has an important advantage in ensuring reliable results. This extended trial emulation with the competing risk analysis enables an unbiased estimation of treatment effects, along with the ability to interpret the effectiveness of treatment on all clinically important outcomes.

Spotlight influenza: The 2019/20 influenza season and the impact of COVID-19 on influenza surveillance in the WHO European Region.

BackgroundAnnual seasonal influenza activity in the northern hemisphere causes a high burden of disease during the winter months, peaking in the first weeks of the year.AimWe describe the 2019/20 influenza season and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentinel surveillance in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region.MethodsWe analysed weekly epidemiological and virological influenza data from sentinel primary care and hospital sources reported by countries, territories and areas (hereafter countries) in the European Region.ResultsWe observed co-circulation of influenza B/Victoria-lineage, A(H1)pdm09 and A(H3) viruses during the 2019/20 season, with different dominance patterns observed across the Region. A higher proportion of patients with influenza A virus infection than type B were observed. The influenza activity started in week 47/2019, and influenza positivity rate was ≥ 50% for 2 weeks (05-06/2020) rather than 5-8 weeks in the previous five seasons. In many countries a rapid reduction in sentinel reports and the highest influenza activity was observed in weeks 09-13/2020. Reporting was reduced from week 14/2020 across the Region coincident with the onset of widespread circulation of SARS-CoV-2.ConclusionsOverall, influenza type A viruses dominated; however, there were varying patterns across the Region, with dominance of B/Victoria-lineage viruses in a few countries. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to an earlier end of the influenza season and reduced influenza virus circulation probably owing to restricted healthcare access and public health measures.

Methodological evaluation of bias in observational coronavirus disease 2019 studies on drug effectiveness.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Observational studies may provide valuable evidence on real-world causal effects of drug effectiveness in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As patients are usually observed from hospital admission to discharge and drug initiation starts during hospitalization, advanced statistical methods are needed to account for time-dependent drug exposure, confounding and competing events. Our objective is to evaluate the observational studies on the three common methodological pitfalls in time-to-event analyses: immortal time bias, confounding bias and competing risk bias. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search on 23 October 2020, in the PubMed database to identify observational cohort studies that evaluated drug effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We included articles published in four journals: British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet as well as their sub-journals. RESULTS: Overall, out of 255 articles screened, 11 observational cohort studies on treatment effectiveness with drug exposure-outcome associations were evaluated. All studies were susceptible to one or more types of bias in the primary study analysis. Eight studies had a time-dependent treatment. However, the hazard ratios were not adjusted for immortal time in the primary analysis. Even though confounders presented at baseline have been addressed in nine studies, time-varying confounding caused by time-varying treatment exposure and clinical variables was less recognized. Only one out of 11 studies addressed competing event bias by extending follow-up beyond patient discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In the observational cohort studies on drug effectiveness for treatment of COVID-19 published in four high-impact journals, the methodological biases were concerningly common. Appropriate statistical tools are essential to avoid misleading conclusions and to obtain a better understanding of potential treatment effects.

Virological surveillance of influenza viruses in the WHO European Region in 2019/20 - impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted the 2019/20 WHO European Region influenza surveillance. Compared with previous 4-year averages, antigenic and genetic characterisations decreased by 17% (3,140 vs 2,601) and 24% (4,474 vs 3,403). Of subtyped influenza A viruses, 56% (26,477/47,357) were A(H1)pdm09, 44% (20,880/47,357) A(H3). Of characterised B viruses, 98% (4,585/4,679) were B/Victoria. Considerable numbers of viruses antigenically differed from northern hemisphere vaccine components. In 2020/21, maintaining influenza virological surveillance, while supporting SARS-CoV-2 surveillance is crucial.