Search

Background : Naming a newly discovered disease is a difficult process; in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the existence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes long COVID, it has proven especially challenging. Disease definitions and assignment of a diagnosis code are often asynchronous and iterative. The clinical definition and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of long COVID are still in flux, and the deployment of an ICD-10-CM code for long COVID in the USA took nearly 2 years after patients had begun to describe their condition. Here, we leverage the largest publicly available HIPAA-limited dataset about patients with COVID-19 in the US to examine the heterogeneity of adoption and use of U09.9, the ICD-10-CM code for "Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified." Methods: We undertook a number of analyses to characterize the N3C population with a U09.9 diagnosis code (n = 33,782), including assessing person-level demographics and a number of area-level social determinants of health; diagnoses commonly co-occurring with U09.9, clustered using the Louvain algorithm; and quantifying medications and procedures recorded within 60 days of U09.9 diagnosis. We stratified all analyses by age group in order to discern differing patterns of care across the lifespan. Results: We established the diagnoses most commonly co-occurring with U09.9 and algorithmically clustered them into four major categories: cardiopulmonary, neurological, gastrointestinal, and comorbid conditions. Importantly, we discovered that the population of patients diagnosed with U09.9 is demographically skewed toward female, White, non-Hispanic individuals, as well as individuals living in areas with low poverty and low unemployment. Our results also include a characterization of common procedures and medications associated with U09.9-coded patients. Conclusions: This work offers insight into potential subtypes and current practice patterns around long COVID and speaks to the existence of disparities in the diagnosis of patients with long COVID. This latter finding in particular requires further research and urgent remediation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of automated algorithms in determining cases of diabetes in children and diabetes type classification based on demographic characteristics. Topics include how administrative and electronic health record data can be used in these algorithms, how age, race, and ethnicity impact the risk of diabetes, and how effective the algorithms were at identifying childhood diabetes of both types.

Background: More than one-third of individuals experience post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, which includes long-COVID). The objective is to identify risk factors associated with PASC/long-COVID diagnosis. Methods: This was a retrospective case–control study including 31 health systems in the United States from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). 8,325 individuals with PASC (defined by the presence of the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 code U09.9 or a long-COVID clinic visit) matched to 41,625 controls within the same health system and COVID index date within ± 45 days of the corresponding case's earliest COVID index date. Measurements of risk factors included demographics, comorbidities, treatment and acute characteristics related to COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost were used to determine the associations between risk factors and PASC. Results: Among 8,325 individuals with PASC, the majority were > 50 years of age (56.6%), female (62.8%), and non-Hispanic White (68.6%). In logistic regression, middle-age categories (40 to 69 years; OR ranging from 2.32 to 2.58), female sex (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.33–1.48), hospitalization associated with COVID-19 (OR 3.8, 95% CI 3.05–4.73), long (8–30 days, OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.31–2.17) or extended hospital stay (30 + days, OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.45–4.67), receipt of mechanical ventilation (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18–1.74), and several comorbidities including depression (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.40–1.60), chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.53–1.74), and obesity (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16–1.3) were associated with increased likelihood of PASC diagnosis or care at a long-COVID clinic. Characteristics associated with a lower likelihood of PASC diagnosis or care at a long-COVID clinic included younger age (18 to 29 years), male sex, non-Hispanic Black race, and comorbidities such as substance abuse, cardiomyopathy, psychosis, and dementia. More doctors per capita in the county of residence was associated with an increased likelihood of PASC diagnosis or care at a long-COVID clinic. Our findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses using a variety of analytic techniques and approaches to select controls. Conclusions: This national study identified important risk factors for PASC diagnosis such as middle age, severe COVID-19 disease, and specific comorbidities. Further clinical and epidemiological research is needed to better understand underlying mechanisms and the potential role of vaccines and therapeutics in altering PASC course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Identifying individuals with a higher risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes will inform targeted and more intensive clinical monitoring and management. To date, there is mixed evidence regarding the impact of preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) diagnosis and/or immunosuppressant (IS) exposure on developing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Methods A retrospective cohort of adults diagnosed with COVID-19 was created in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative enclave. Two outcomes, life-threatening disease and hospitalization, were evaluated by using logistic regression models with and without adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Results Of the 2 453 799 adults diagnosed with COVID-19, 191 520 (7.81%) had a preexisting AID diagnosis and 278 095 (11.33%) had a preexisting IS exposure. Logistic regression models adjusted for demographics and comorbidities demonstrated that individuals with a preexisting AID (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09–1.17; P <.001), IS exposure (OR, 1.27; 95% CI: 1.24–1.30; P <.001), or both (OR, 1.35; 95% CI: 1.29–1.40; P <.001) were more likely to have a life-threatening disease. These results were consistent when hospitalization was evaluated. A sensitivity analysis evaluating specific IS revealed that tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were protective against life-threatening disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI:.66–.96; P =.017) and hospitalization (OR, 0.80; 95% CI:.73–.89; P <.001). Conclusions Patients with preexisting AID, IS exposure, or both are more likely to have a life-threatening disease or hospitalization. These patients may thus require tailored monitoring and preventative measures to minimize negative consequences of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to reduce pain, fever, and inflammation but have been associated with complications in community-acquired pneumonia. Observations shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 suggested that ibuprofen was associated with an increased risk of adverse events in COVID-19 patients, but subsequent observational studies failed to demonstrate increased risk and in one case showed reduced risk associated with NSAID use. Methods: A 38-center retrospective cohort study was performed that leveraged the harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record data of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. A propensity-matched cohort of 19,746 COVID-19 inpatients was constructed by matching cases (treated with NSAIDs at the time of admission) and 19,746 controls (not treated) from 857,061 patients with COVID-19 available for analysis. The primary outcome of interest was COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, which was classified as: moderate, severe, or mortality/hospice. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), invasive ventilation, and all-cause mortality at any time following COVID-19 diagnosis. Results: Logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased COVID-19 severity (OR: 0.57 95% CI: 0.53–0.61). Analysis of secondary outcomes using logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.51 95% CI: 0.47–0.56), invasive ventilation (OR: 0.59 95% CI: 0.55–0.64), AKI (OR: 0.67 95% CI: 0.63–0.72), or ECMO (OR: 0.51 95% CI: 0.36–0.7). In contrast, the odds ratios indicate reduced risk of these outcomes, but our quantitative bias analysis showed E-values of between 1.9 and 3.3 for these associations, indicating that comparatively weak or moderate confounder associations could explain away the observed associations. Conclusions: Study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Recording of NSAID use may have been incomplete. Our study demonstrates that NSAID use is not associated with increased COVID-19 severity, all-cause mortality, invasive ventilation, AKI, or ECMO in COVID-19 inpatients. A conservative interpretation in light of the quantitative bias analysis is that there is no evidence that NSAID use is associated with risk of increased severity or the other measured outcomes. Our results confirm and extend analogous findings in previous observational studies using a large cohort of patients drawn from 38 centers in a nationally representative multicenter database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many research studies fail to enroll enough research participants. Patient-facing electronic health record applications, known as patient portals, may be used to send research invitations to eligible patients. Objective: The first aim was to determine if receipt of a patient portal research recruitment invitation was associated with enrollment in a large ongoing study of newborns (Early Check). The second aim was to determine if there were differences in opening the patient portal research recruitment invitation and study enrollment by race and ethnicity, age, or rural/urban home address. Methods: We used a computable phenotype and queried the health care system's clinical data warehouse to identify women whose newborns would likely be eligible. Research recruitment invitations were sent through the women's patient portals. We conducted logistic regressions to test whether women enrolled their newborns after receipt of a patient portal invitation and whether there were differences by race and ethnicity, age, and rural/urban home address. Results: Research recruitment invitations were sent to 4510 women not yet enrolled through their patient portals between November 22, 2019, through March 5, 2020. Among women who received a patient portal invitation, 3.6% (161/4510) enrolled their newborns within 27 days. The odds of enrolling among women who opened the invitation was nearly 9 times the odds of enrolling among women who did not open their invitation (SE 3.24, OR 8.86, 95% CI 4.33-18.13; P<.001). On average, it took 3.92 days for women to enroll their newborn in the study, with 64% (97/161) enrolling their newborn within 1 day of opening the invitation. There were disparities by race and urbanicity in enrollment in the study after receipt of a patient portal research invitation but not by age. Black women were less likely to enroll their newborns than White women (SE 0.09, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.55; P<.001), and women in urban zip codes were more likely to enroll their newborns than women in rural zip codes (SE 0.97, OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.62-5.67; P=.001). Black women (SE 0.05, OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.78; P<.001) and Hispanic women (SE 0.07, OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P=.002) were less likely to open the research invitation compared to White women. Conclusions: Patient portals are an effective way to recruit participants for research studies, but there are substantial racial and ethnic disparities and disparities by urban/rural status in the use of patient portals, the opening of a patient portal invitation, and enrollment in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Electronic Medical Record Search Engine (EMERSE) is a software tool built to aid research spanning cohort discovery, population health, and data abstraction for clinical trials. EMERSE is now live at three academic medical centers, with additional sites currently working on implementation. In this report, we describe how EMERSE has been used to support cancer research based on a variety of metrics. METHODS: We identified peer-reviewed publications that used EMERSE through online searches as well as through direct e-mails to users based on audit logs. These logs were also used to summarize use at each of the three sites. Search terms for two of the sites were characterized using the natural language processing tool MetaMap to determine to which semantic types the terms could be mapped. RESULTS: We identified a total of 326 peer-reviewed publications that used EMERSE through August 2019, although this is likely an underestimation of the true total based on the use log analysis. Oncology-related research comprised nearly one third (n = 105; 32.2%) of all research output. The use logs showed that EMERSE had been used by multiple people at each site (nearly 3,500 across all three) who had collectively logged into the system > 100,000 times. Many user-entered search queries could not be mapped to a semantic type, but the most common semantic type for terms that did match was "disease or syndrome," followed by "pharmacologic substance." CONCLUSION: EMERSE has been shown to be a valuable tool for supporting cancer research. It has been successfully deployed at other sites, despite some implementation challenges unique to each deployment environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informatics tools to support the integration and subsequent interrogation of spatiotemporal data such as clinical data and environmental exposures data are lacking. Such tools are needed to support research in environmental health and any biomedical field that is challenged by the need for integrated spatiotemporal data to examine individual-level determinants of health and disease.Results: We have developed an open-source software application-FHIR PIT (Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources Patient data Integration Tool)-to enable studies on the impact of individual-level environmental exposures on health and disease. FHIR PIT was motivated by the need to integrate patient data derived from our institution's clinical warehouse with a variety of public data sources on environmental exposures and then openly expose the data via ICEES (Integrated Clinical and Environmental Exposures Service). FHIR PIT consists of transformation steps or building blocks that can be chained together to form a transformation and integration workflow. Several transformation steps are generic and thus can be reused. As such, new types of data can be incorporated into the modular FHIR PIT pipeline by simply reusing generic steps or adding new ones. We validated FHIR PIT in the context of a driving use case designed to investigate the impact of airborne pollutant exposures on asthma. Specifically, we replicated published findings demonstrating racial disparities in the impact of airborne pollutants on asthma exacerbations.Conclusions: While FHIR PIT was developed to support our driving use case on asthma, the software can be used to integrate any type and number of spatiotemporal data sources at a level of granularity that enables individual-level study. We expect FHIR PIT to facilitate research in environmental health and numerous other biomedical disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We briefly describe several clinical data types that are commonly employed in clinical and translational research, including fully identified clinical data, HIPAA-limited clinical data, deidentified clinical data, and synthetic data. We highlight several novel approaches for openly exposing clinical data that we have developed as part of the Translator program, namely, HIPAA Safe Harbor Plus (HuSH+) clinical data, clinical profiles, Columbia Open Health Data (COHD), and the Integrated Clinical and Environmental Exposures Service (ICEES). Deidentified clinical data sets may be used for clinical interpretation and scientific inference and discovery but to a lesser extent than HIPAA-limited clinical data sets because of the fact that key variables or covariates may have been removed from the data. Synthetic clinical data sets comprise realistic (but not real) data generated statistically by applying simulation techniques to population distributions of observational patient data. [Extracted from the article]

Type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes are distinct diseases, but most federal surveys used to monitor diabetes prevalence have not included questions on diabetes type. To design and validate survey questions that will distinguish between T1D and T2D in adults, we developed a survey sample in whom we first determined a "gold standard" for diabetes type from review of electronic health record (EHR) data. From >50,000 adult patients in the UNC Health Care System with diabetes, we assembled a sample of 2479 patients using a "strawman" definition based on diabetes-related diagnostic codes, laboratory results, and drugs. We stratified the sample using age, sex, race/ethnicity and crude diabetes type, oversampling T1D. For visits between 10/2014 and 9/2017, we collected clinical and demographic data including body mass index, diagnosis codes, medications, family history, and laboratory tests. We also abstracted chart notes, using trained personnel, to find additional information including diabetes duration and historical treatments. We created two models to determine diabetes type. The first was a decision tree, in which higher nodes sorted straightforward cases; lower nodes included more specific factors for those not categorized in higher nodes. The second was a weighted model, in which factors drawn from clinical or epidemiologic literature weighed weakly, moderately, or strongly in favor of or against each type of diabetes. The two models were 89% congruent for T1D and 96% congruent for T2D. An endocrinologist reviewed and determined type for the 10% of patients for which results of the two models were not congruent or for which neither was able to determine type. Overall, 70% of our sample has T2D, 27% has T1D, and 3% has indeterminate or other diabetes. We will use this sample to validate survey questions to determine type of diabetes. Such "gold standard" determinations may support validation of new and improved methods for measuring diabetes type among the adult population. Disclosure: M. Kirkman: Research Support; Self; Bayer AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Theracos, Inc. J.G. Nooney: None. S.R. Benoit: None. K.A. Bergamo: None. K.M. Bullard: None. J.R. Campione: None. R. Mardon: None. E. Pfaff: None. D.B. Rolka: None. S. Saydah: None. Funding: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]