Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background For some SARS-CoV-2 survivors, recovery from the acute phase of the infection has been grueling with lingering effects. Many of the symptoms characterized as the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) could have multiple causes or are similarly seen in non-COVID patients. Accurate identification of PASC phenotypes will be important to guide future research and help the healthcare system focus its efforts and resources on adequately controlled age- and gender-specific sequelae of a COVID-19 infection. Methods In this retrospective electronic health record (EHR) cohort study, we applied a computational framework for knowledge discovery from clinical data, MLHO, to identify phenotypes that positively associate with a past positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19. We evaluated the post-test phenotypes in two temporal windows at 3–6 and 6–9 months after the test and by age and gender. Data from longitudinal diagnosis records stored in EHRs from Mass General Brigham in the Boston Metropolitan Area was used for the analyses. Statistical analyses were performed on data from March 2020 to June 2021. Study participants included over 96 thousand patients who had tested positive or negative for COVID-19 and were not hospitalized. Results We identified 33 phenotypes among different age/gender cohorts or time windows that were positively associated with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. All identified phenotypes were newly recorded in patients’ medical records 2 months or longer after a COVID-19 RT-PCR test in non-hospitalized patients regardless of the test result. Among these phenotypes, a new diagnosis record for anosmia and dysgeusia (OR 2.60, 95% CI [1.94–3.46]), alopecia (OR 3.09, 95% CI [2.53–3.76]), chest pain (OR 1.27, 95% CI [1.09–1.48]), chronic fatigue syndrome (OR 2.60, 95% CI [1.22–2.10]), shortness of breath (OR 1.41, 95% CI [1.22–1.64]), pneumonia (OR 1.66, 95% CI [1.28–2.16]), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.41, 95% CI [1.22–1.64]) is one of the most significant indicators of a past COVID-19 infection. Additionally, more new phenotypes were found with increased confidence among the cohorts who were younger than 65. Conclusions The findings of this study confirm many of the post-COVID-19 symptoms and suggest that a variety of new diagnoses, including new diabetes mellitus and neurological disorder diagnoses, are more common among those with a history of COVID-19 than those without the infection. Additionally, more than 63% of PASC phenotypes were observed in patients under 65 years of age, pointing out the importance of vaccination to minimize the risk of debilitating post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 among younger adults.

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19–related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.

Purpose The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19. Methods We used “COVID-19 Evidence Alerts” (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer. Results We included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome. Conclusion Seven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients.

Haloperidol, a widely used antipsychotic, has been suggested as potentially useful for patients with COVID-19 on the grounds of its in-vitro antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2, possibly through sigma-1 receptor antagonist effect. We examined the associations of haloperidol use with intubation or death and time to discharge home among adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) Greater Paris University hospitals. Study baseline was defined as the date of hospital admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of intubation or death and the secondary endpoint was discharge home among survivors in time-to-event analyses. In the primary analyses, we compared these two outcomes between patients receiving and not receiving haloperidol using univariate Cox regression models in matched analytic samples based on patient characteristics and other psychotropic medications. Sensitivity analyses included propensity score analyses with inverse probability weighting and multivariable Cox regression models. Of 15,121 adult inpatients with a positive COVID-19 PT-PCR test, 39 patients (0.03%) received haloperidol within the first 48 hours of admission. Over a mean follow-up of 13.8 days (SD = 17.9), 2,024 patients (13.4%) had a primary end-point event and 10,179 patients (77.6%) were discharged home at the time of study end on May 1st. The primary endpoint occurred in 9 patients (23.1%) who received haloperidol and 2,015 patients (13.4%) who did not. The secondary endpoint of discharge home occurred in 16 patients (61.5%) who received haloperidol and 9,907 patients (85.8%) who did not. There were no significant associations between haloperidol use and the primary (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.62, p = 0.531) and secondary (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.28, p = 0.355) endpoints. Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses. Findings from this multicenter observational study suggest that haloperidol use prescribed at a mean dose of 4.5 mg per day (SD = 5.2) for a mean duration of 8.4 days (SD = 7.2) may not be associated with risk of intubation or death, or with time to discharge home, among adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries ( www.covidclinical.net ). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

Introduction Chlorpromazine has been suggested as being potentially useful in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the grounds of its potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects. Objective The aim of this study was to examine the association between chlorpromazine use and mortality among adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods We conducted an observational, multicenter, retrospective study at Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) Greater Paris University hospitals. Study baseline was defined as the date of first prescription of chlorpromazine during hospitalization for COVID-19. The primary endpoint was death. Among patients who had not been hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs), we compared this endpoint between those who received chlorpromazine and those who did not, in time-to-event analyses adjusted for patient characteristics, clinical markers of disease severity, and other psychotropic medications. The primary analysis used a Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Of the 14,340 adult inpatients hospitalized outside ICUs for COVID-19, 55 patients (0.4%) received chlorpromazine. Over a mean follow-up of 14.3 days (standard deviation [SD] 18.2), death occurred in 13 patients (23.6%) who received chlorpromazine and 1289 patients (9.0%) who did not. In the primary analysis, there was no significant association between chlorpromazine use and mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–5.40; p  = 0.163). Sensitivity analyses included a Cox regression in a 1:5 ratio matched analytic sample that showed a similar result (HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.91–3.06; p  = 0.100) and a multivariable Cox regression that indicated a significant positive association (HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.31–7.34; p  = 0.010). Conclusion Our results suggest that chlorpromazine prescribed at a mean daily dose of 70.8 mg (SD 65.3) was not associated with reduced mortality.

In young adults (18 to 49 years old), investigation of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been limited. We evaluated the risk factors and outcomes of ARDS following infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a young adult population. A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 1st, 2020 and February 28th, 2021 using patient-level electronic health records (EHR), across 241 United States hospitals and 43 European hospitals participating in the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE). To identify the risk factors associated with ARDS, we compared young patients with and without ARDS through a federated analysis. We further compared the outcomes between young and old patients with ARDS. Among the 75,377 hospitalized patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR, 1001 young adults presented with ARDS (7.8% of young hospitalized adults). Their mortality rate at 90 days was 16.2% and they presented with a similar complication rate for infection than older adults with ARDS. Peptic ulcer disease, paralysis, obesity, congestive heart failure, valvular disease, diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease and liver disease were associated with a higher risk of ARDS. We described a high prevalence of obesity (53%), hypertension (38%- although not significantly associated with ARDS), and diabetes (32%). Trough an innovative method, a large international cohort study of young adults developing ARDS after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been gather. It demonstrated the poor outcomes of this population and associated risk factor.

BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that socioeconomic factors are associated with COVID-19 incidence. In this study, we analysed a broad range of socioeconomic indicators in relation to hospitalised cases in the Paris area.MethodsWe extracted 303 socioeconomic indicators from French census data for 855 residential units in Paris and assessed their association with COVID-19 hospitalisation risk.FindingsThe indicators most associated with hospitalisation risk were the third decile of population income (OR=9.10, 95% CI 4.98 to 18.39), followed by the primary residence rate (OR=5.87, 95% CI 3.46 to 10.61), rate of active workers in unskilled occupations (OR=5.04, 95% CI 3.03 to 8.85) and rate of women over 15 years old with no diploma (OR=5.04, 95% CI 3.03 to 8.85). Of note, population demographics were considerably less associated with hospitalisation risk. Among these indicators, the rate of women aged between 45 and 59 years (OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.44) exhibited the greatest level of association, whereas population density was not associated. Overall, 86% of COVID-19 hospitalised cases occurred within the 45% most deprived areas.InterpretationStudying a broad range of socioeconomic indicators using census data and hospitalisation data as a readily available and large resource can provide real-time indirect information on populations with a high incidence of COVID-19.

Purpose The role of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), or other antihypertensive agents in the case of Covid-19 remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the association between antihypertensive agent exposure and in-hospital mortality in patients with Covid-19. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on patients hospitalized between February 1 and May 15, 2020. All patients had been followed up for at least 30 days. Results Of the 8078 hospitalized patients for Covid-19, 3686 (45.6%) had hypertension and were included in the study. In this population, the median age was 75.4 (IQR, 21.5) years and 57.1% were male. Overall in-hospital 30-day mortality was 23.1%. The main antihypertensive pharmacological classes used were calcium channel blockers (CCB) ( n =1624, 44.1%), beta-blockers ( n =1389, 37.7%), ARB ( n =1154, 31.3%), and ACEi ( n =998, 27.1%). The risk of mortality was lower in CCB (aOR, 0.83 [0.70–0.99]) and beta-blockers (aOR, 0.80 [0.67–0.95]) users and non-significant in ARB (aOR, 0.88 [0.72–1.06]) and ACEi (aOR, 0.83 [0.68–1.02]) users, compared to non-users. These results remain consistent for patients receiving CCB, beta-blocker, or ARB as monotherapies. Conclusion This large multicenter retrospective of Covid-19 patients with hypertension found a reduced mortality among CCB and beta-blockers users, suggesting a putative protective effect. Our findings did not show any association between the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and the risk of in-hospital death. Although they need to be confirmed in further studies, these results support the continuation of antihypertensive agents in patients with Covid-19, in line with the current guidelines.