Search

This study leverages electronic health record data in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative's (N3C) repository to investigate disparities in Paxlovid treatment and to emulate a target trial assessing its effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 hospitalization rates. From an eligible population of 632,822 COVID-19 patients seen at 33 clinical sites across the United States between December 23, 2021 and December 31, 2022, patients were matched across observed treatment groups, yielding an analytical sample of 410,642 patients. We estimate a 65% reduced odds of hospitalization among Paxlovid-treated patients within a 28-day follow-up period, and this effect did not vary by patient vaccination status. Notably, we observe disparities in Paxlovid treatment, with lower rates among Black and Hispanic or Latino patients, and within socially vulnerable communities. Ours is the largest study of Paxlovid's real-world effectiveness to date, and our primary findings are consistent with previous randomized control trials and real-world studies., Competing Interests: Competing Interests No authors have competing interests or disclosures to report.

Importance: Identifying individuals with a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 outcomes will inform targeted or more intensive clinical monitoring and management., Objective: To examine, using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), whether patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) diagnosis and/or immunosuppressant (IS) exposure are at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 outcomes., Design Setting and Participants: A retrospective cohort of 2,453,799 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 1 st , 2020, and June 30 th , 2022, was created from the N3C data enclave, which comprises data of 15,231,849 patients from 75 USA data partners. Patients were stratified as those with/without a pre-existing diagnosis of AID and/or those with/without exposure to IS prior to COVID-19., Main Outcomes and Measures: Two outcomes of COVID-19 severity, derived from the World Health Organization severity score, were defined, namely life-threatening disease and hospitalization. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression models with and without adjustment for demographics (age, BMI, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking status), and comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, dementia, pulmonary disease, liver disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, kidney disease, cancer, and HIV infection)., Results: In total, 2,453,799 (16.11% of the N3C cohort) adults (age> 18 years) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of which 191,520 (7.81%) had a prior AID diagnosis, and 278,095 (11.33%) had a prior IS exposure. Logistic regression models adjusted for demographic factors and comorbidities demonstrated that individuals with a prior AID (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.17; p =2.43E-13), prior exposure to IS (OR= 1.27, 95% CI 1.24 - 1.30; p =3.66E-74), or both (OR= 1.35, 95% CI 1.29 - 1.40; p =7.50E-49) were more likely to have a life-threatening COVID-19 disease. These results were confirmed after adjusting for exposure to antivirals and vaccination in a cohort subset with COVID-19 diagnosis dates after December 2021 (AID OR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.36; p =2.46E-02; IS OR= 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 - 1.80; p =5.11E-14; AID+IS OR= 1.93, 95% CI 1.62 - 2.30; p =1.68E-13). These results were consistent when evaluating hospitalization as the outcome and also when stratifying by race and sex. Finally, a sensitivity analysis evaluating specific IS revealed that TNF inhibitors were protective against life-threatening disease (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.96; p =1.66E-2) and hospitalization (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 - 0.89; p =1.06E-05)., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with pre-existing AID, exposure to IS, 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.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has persisted for over 2 years, reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 are not well understood. We use the electronic health record (EHR)-based study cohort from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) as part of the NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative to characterize reinfection, understand development of Long COVID after reinfection, and compare severity of reinfection with initial infection. We validate previous findings of reinfection incidence (5.9%), the occurrence of most reinfections during the Omicron epoch, and evidence of multiple reinfections. We present novel findings that Long COVID diagnoses occur closer to the index date for infection or reinfection in the Omicron BA epoch. We report lower albumin levels leading up to reinfection and a statistically significant association of severity between first infection and reinfection (chi-squared value: 9446.2, p-value: 0) with a medium effect size (Cramer's V: 0.18, DoF = 4).

Importance: Characterizing the effect of vaccination on long COVID allows for better healthcare recommendations., Objective: To determine if, and to what degree, vaccination prior to COVID-19 is associated with eventual long COVID onset, among those a documented COVID-19 infection., Design Settings and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of adults with evidence of COVID-19 between August 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022 based on electronic health records from eleven healthcare institutions taking part in the NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a project of the National Covid Cohort Collaborative (N3C)., Exposures: Pre-COVID-19 receipt of a complete vaccine series versus no pre-COVID-19 vaccination., Main Outcomes and Measures: Two approaches to the identification of long COVID were used. In the clinical diagnosis cohort (n=47,752), ICD-10 diagnosis codes or evidence of a healthcare encounter at a long COVID clinic were used. In the model-based cohort (n=199,498), a computable phenotype was used. The association between pre-COVID vaccination and long COVID was estimated using IPTW-adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards., Results: In both cohorts, when adjusting for demographics and medical history, pre-COVID vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of long COVID (clinic-based cohort: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82; model-based cohort: HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75)., Conclusions and Relevance: Long COVID has become a central concern for public health experts. Prior studies have considered the effect of vaccination on the prevalence of future long COVID symptoms, but ours is the first to thoroughly characterize the association between vaccination and clinically diagnosed or computationally derived long COVID. Our results bolster the growing consensus that vaccines retain protective effects against long COVID even in breakthrough infections., Key Points: Question: Does vaccination prior to COVID-19 onset change the risk of long COVID diagnosis? Findings: Four observational analyses of EHRs showed a statistically significant reduction in long COVID risk associated with pre-COVID vaccination (first cohort: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82; second cohort: HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75). Meaning: Vaccination prior to COVID onset has a protective association with long COVID even in the case of breakthrough infections.

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 US took nearly two 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 = 21,072), 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, high education, and high access to medical care. 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.

Background: More than one-third of individuals experience post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, which includes long-COVID)., Objective: To identify risk factors associated with PASC/long-COVID., Design: Retrospective case-control study., Setting: 31 health systems in the United States from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)., Patients: 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., Measurements: Risk factors included demographics, comorbidities, and 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 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.

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 COVID-19 inpatients was constructed by matching cases (treated with NSAIDs) and controls (not treated) from 857,061 patients with COVID-19. 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 findings are the largest EHR-based analysis of the effect of NSAIDs on outcome in COVID-19 patients to date. 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.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2., Objective: To determine the characteristics, changes over time, outcomes, and severity risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 affected children within the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)., Design: Prospective cohort study of patient encounters with end dates before May 27th, 2021., Setting: 45 N3C institutions., Participants: Children <19-years-old at initial SARS-CoV-2 testing., Main Outcomes and Measures: Case incidence and severity over time, demographic and comorbidity severity risk factors, vital sign and laboratory trajectories, clinical outcomes, and acute COVID-19 vs MIS-C contrasts for children infected with SARS-CoV-2., Results: 728,047 children in the N3C were tested for SARS-CoV-2; of these, 91,865 (12.6%) were positive. Among the 5,213 (6%) hospitalized children, 685 (13%) met criteria for severe disease: mechanical ventilation (7%), vasopressor/inotropic support (7%), ECMO (0.6%), or death/discharge to hospice (1.1%). Male gender, African American race, older age, and several pediatric complex chronic condition (PCCC) subcategories were associated with higher clinical severity (p ≤ 0.05). Vital signs (all p≤0.002) and many laboratory tests from the first day of hospitalization were predictive of peak disease severity. Children with severe (vs moderate) disease were more likely to receive antimicrobials (71% vs 32%, p<0.001) and immunomodulatory medications (53% vs 16%, p<0.001). Compared to those with acute COVID-19, children with MIS-C were more likely to be male, Black/African American, 1-to-12-years-old, and less likely to have asthma, diabetes, or a PCCC (p < 0.04). MIS-C cases demonstrated a more inflammatory laboratory profile and more severe clinical phenotype with higher rates of invasive ventilation (12% vs 6%) and need for vasoactive-inotropic support (31% vs 6%) compared to acute COVID-19 cases, respectively (p<0.03)., Conclusions: In the largest U.S. SARS-CoV-2-positive pediatric cohort to date, we observed differences in demographics, pre-existing comorbidities, and initial vital sign and laboratory test values between severity subgroups. Taken together, these results suggest that early identification of children likely to progress to severe disease could be achieved using readily available data elements from the day of admission. Further work is needed to translate this knowledge into improved outcomes.

Since late 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has introduced a wide array of health challenges globally. In addition to a complex acute presentation that can affect multiple organ systems, increasing evidence points to long-term sequelae being common and impactful. The worldwide scientific community is forging ahead to characterize a wide range of outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection; however the underlying assumptions in these studies have varied so widely that the resulting data are difficult to compareFormal definitions are needed in order to design robust and consistent studies of Long COVID that consistently capture variation in long-term outcomes. Even the condition itself goes by three terms, most widely "Long COVID", but also "COVID-19 syndrome (PACS)" or, "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC)". In the present study, we investigate the definitions used in the literature published to date and compare them against data available from electronic health records and patient-reported information collected via surveys. Long COVID holds the potential to produce a second public health crisis on the heels of the pandemic itself. Proactive efforts to identify the characteristics of this heterogeneous condition are imperative for a rigorous scientific effort to investigate and mitigate this threat., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Julie A. McMurry: Cofounder, Pryzm Health; Melissa A. Haendel: co-founder Pryzm Health

Background: The majority of U.S. reports of COVID-19 clinical characteristics, disease course, and treatments are from single health systems or focused on one domain. Here we report the creation of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a centralized, harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record repository that is the largest, most representative U.S. cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls to date. This multi-center dataset supports robust evidence-based development of predictive and diagnostic tools and informs critical care and policy., Methods and Findings: In a retrospective cohort study of 1,926,526 patients from 34 medical centers nationwide, we stratified patients using a World Health Organization COVID-19 severity scale and demographics; we then evaluated differences between groups over time using multivariable logistic regression. We established vital signs and laboratory values among COVID-19 patients with different severities, providing the foundation for predictive analytics. The cohort included 174,568 adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PCR >99% or antigen <1%) as well as 1,133,848 adult patients that served as lab-negative controls. Among 32,472 hospitalized patients, mortality was 11.6% overall and decreased from 16.4% in March/April 2020 to 8.6% in September/October 2020 (p = 0.002 monthly trend). In a multivariable logistic regression model, age, male sex, liver disease, dementia, African-American and Asian race, and obesity were independently associated with higher clinical severity. To demonstrate the utility of the N3C cohort for analytics, we used machine learning (ML) to predict clinical severity and risk factors over time. Using 64 inputs available on the first hospital day, we predicted a severe clinical course (death, discharge to hospice, invasive ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) using random forest and XGBoost models (AUROC 0.86 and 0.87 respectively) that were stable over time. The most powerful predictors in these models are patient age and widely available vital sign and laboratory values. The established expected trajectories for many vital signs and laboratory values among patients with different clinical severities validates observations from smaller studies, and provides comprehensive insight into COVID-19 characterization in U.S. patients., Conclusions: This is the first description of an ongoing longitudinal observational study of patients seen in diverse clinical settings and geographical regions and is the largest COVID-19 cohort in the United States. Such data are the foundation for ML models that can be the basis for generalizable clinical decision support tools. The N3C Data Enclave is unique in providing transparent, reproducible, easily shared, versioned, and fully auditable data and analytic provenance for national-scale patient-level EHR data. The N3C is built for intensive ML analyses by academic, industry, and citizen scientists internationally. Many observational correlations can inform trial designs and care guidelines for this new disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Benjamin Amor, Katie Rebecca Bradwell, Andrew T. Girvin, Amin Manna, and Nabeel Qureshi: employee of Palantir Technologies; Brian T. Garibaldi: Member of the FDA Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee (PADAC); Matvey B. Palchuk: employee of TriNetX; Kristin Kostka: employee of IQVIA Inc.; Julie A. McMurry: and Melissa A. Haendel Cofounders of Pryzm Health; Chris P. Austin and Ken R. Gersing, employees of the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest reported for all other authors.