Search

Objective Observational studies can impact patient care but must be robust and reproducible. Nonreproducibility is primarily caused by unclear reporting of design choices and analytic procedures. This study aimed to: (1) assess how the study logic described in an observational study could be interpreted by independent researchers and (2) quantify the impact of interpretations’ variability on patient characteristics. Materials and Methods Nine teams of highly qualified researchers reproduced a cohort from a study by Albogami et al. The teams were provided the clinical codes and access to the tools to create cohort definitions such that the only variable part was their logic choices. We executed teams’ cohort definitions against the database and compared the number of subjects, patient overlap, and patient characteristics. Results On average, the teams’ interpretations fully aligned with the master implementation in 4 out of 10 inclusion criteria with at least 4 deviations per team. Cohorts’ size varied from one-third of the master cohort size to 10 times the cohort size (2159–63 619 subjects compared to 6196 subjects). Median agreement was 9.4% (interquartile range 15.3–16.2%). The teams’ cohorts significantly differed from the master implementation by at least 2 baseline characteristics, and most of the teams differed by at least 5. Conclusions Independent research teams attempting to reproduce the study based on its free-text description alone produce different implementations that vary in the population size and composition. Sharing analytical code supported by a common data model and open-source tools allows reproducing a study unambiguously thereby preserving initial design choices.

Background: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza. Methods: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, 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 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes. Results: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%–18% and 1%–14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events. Conclusions: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent. Impact: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.

Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension. Methods In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296. Findings Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84–1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90–1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68–1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83–1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79–0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69–1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons. Interpretation No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.

Objective: To characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients. Design and setting: This is a retrospective cohort study using 15 healthcare databases (primary and secondary electronic healthcare records, insurance and national claims data) from the USA, Europe and South Korea, standardised to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. Data were gathered from 1 March to 31 October 2020. Participants: Two non-mutually exclusive cohorts were defined: (1) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (diagnosed cohort) and (2) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 (hospitalised cohort), and stratified by hypertension status. Follow-up was from COVID-19 diagnosis/hospitalisation to death, end of the study period or 30 days. Outcomes: Demographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported. Results: We identified 2 851 035 diagnosed and 563 708 hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Hypertension was more prevalent in the latter (ranging across databases from 17.4% (95% CI 17.2 to 17.6) to 61.4% (95% CI 61.0 to 61.8) and from 25.6% (95% CI 24.6 to 26.6) to 85.9% (95% CI 85.2 to 86.6)). Patients in both cohorts with hypertension were predominantly >50 years old and female. Patients with hypertension were frequently diagnosed with obesity, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes. Compared with patients without hypertension, patients with hypertension in the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort had more hospitalisations (ranging from 1.3% (95% CI 0.4 to 2.2) to 41.1% (95% CI 39.5 to 42.7) vs from 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) to 15.9% (95% CI 14.9 to 16.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) to 18.5% (95% CI 15.7 to 21.3) vs from 0.2% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.2) to 11.8% (95% CI 10.8 to 12.8)). Patients in the COVID-19 hospitalised cohort with hypertension were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ranging from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 65.6% (95% CI 62.5 to 68.7) vs from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 54.7% (95% CI 50.5 to 58.9)), arrhythmia (ranging from 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) to 45.8% (95% CI 42.6 to 49.0) vs from 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) to 36.8% (95% CI 32.7 to 40.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 1.8% (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2) to 25.1% (95% CI 23.0 to 27.2) vs from 0.7% (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) to 10.9% (95% CI 10.4 to 11.4)) than patients without hypertension. Conclusions: COVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension. This work was supported by several funders as follows: the European Health Data and Evidence Network received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement number 806968. The JU received support from the European Union’s 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 (R01 LM006910), US Department of Veterans Affairs, the Health Department from the Generalitat de Catalunya with a grant for research projects on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease organised by the Direcció General de Recerca i Innovació en Salut, Janssen Research and Development, TFS, IOMED and IQVIA. The University of Oxford received funding related to this work from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Investment ID INV-016201 and INV-019257). TFS received funding related to this work from the University of Oxford. This work was also supported with funding (resources and facilities) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) (VA HSR RES 13-457).

Patients 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.Multinational network cohort study.Electronic 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).All 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.30-day complications during hospitalisation and death.We 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%).Patients 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.Patients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications.There is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions.Most people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities.Patients 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.A variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases.For 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.

Background A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity. Methods We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status. Results We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8−40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0−33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity. Conclusion We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies.

ObjectivesTo perform an international comparison of the trajectory of laboratory values among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who develop severe disease and identify optimal timing of laboratory value collection to predict severity across hospitals and regions.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingThe Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE), an international multi-site data-sharing collaborative of 342 hospitals in the US and in Europe.ParticipantsPatients hospitalized with COVID-19, admitted before or after PCR-confirmed result for SARS-CoV-2.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPatients were categorized as “ever-severe” or “never-severe” using the validated 4CE severity criteria. Eighteen laboratory tests associated with poor COVID-19-related outcomes were evaluated for predictive accuracy by area under the curve (AUC), compared between the severity categories. Subgroup analysis was performed to validate a subset of laboratory values as predictive of severity against a published algorithm. A subset of laboratory values (CRP, albumin, LDH, neutrophil count, D-dimer, and procalcitonin) was compared between North American and European sites for severity prediction.ResultsOf 36,447 patients with COVID-19, 19,953 (43.7%) were categorized as ever-severe. Most patients (78.7%) were 50 years of age or older and male (60.5%). Longitudinal trajectories of CRP, albumin, LDH, neutrophil count, D-dimer, and procalcitonin showed association with disease severity. Significant differences of laboratory values at admission were found between the two groups. With the exception of D-dimer, predictive discrimination of laboratory values did not improve after admission. Sub-group analysis using age, D-dimer, CRP, and lymphocyte count as predictive of severity at admission showed similar discrimination to a published algorithm (AUC=0.88 and 0.91, respectively). Both models deteriorated in predictive accuracy as the disease progressed. On average, no difference in severity prediction was found between North American and European sites.ConclusionsLaboratory test values at admission can be used to predict severity in patients with COVID-19. Prediction models show consistency across international sites highlighting the potential generalizability of these models.

Background SARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from 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” criteria, and it has not been externally validated. Objective The aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases. Methods We followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Results The internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the 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 data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68. Conclusions Our results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, 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.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals have higher risk of suicide ideation and attempts than their heterosexual counterparts, but suicide data, and mortality data in general, about LGB populations are scant because sexual orientation is not included in mortality surveillance. Electronic health record (EHR) data provide opportunities to learn about mortality among LGB populations. This study investigated mortality among a cohort of Veterans with LGB sexual orientation documented within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) EHR. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on documentation of LGB sexual orientation obtained through both natural language processing of clinical notes and extraction of structured administrative data for sexual orientation in the VHA EHR from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2017. Mortality data were obtained from the National Death Index. Cause of death was defined by International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision codes. The ten top‐ranked causes of death were compared between LGB Veterans and the general US population. Mortality rates were calculated for all‐cause and suicide‐related deaths. Person time was accumulated from first LGB documentation to either date of death or end of FY2017, whichever came first. Analyses were stratified by sex. POPULATION STUDIED: LGB Veterans who utilize care through the VHA. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Throughout 18‐year study period, there were 95,964 Veterans with at least one LGB documentation in the EHR (30% women, 61% men); of these, 12 277 died in the study period. Mortality follow‐up averaged 4.5 years. All‐cause mortality rate was 2323.4/100 000. Causes of mortality were similar to the US population; diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and external injuries were the top three causes in both sexual minority male and female Veterans. Of the total deaths, 437 (3.6%) were due to suicide, and the average age at suicide death was 46.8 years. The suicide rate among LGB Veterans (82.7/100 000) was more than two times higher than rates observed for the general VHA population (37.7/100 000). Suicide rates among sexual minority male Veterans were 1.6 times higher than sexual minority female Veterans (95.01/100 000 vs 56.23/100 000, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Findings corroborate previous limited research suggesting elevated rates of suicide among LGB individuals. These findings reflect mortality rates only for LGB Veterans who use the VHA and have documentation of sexual orientation recorded in the EHR. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Suicide prevention is currently VHA’s top clinical priority. Results indicate that LGB Veterans have greater risk of suicide death than the general VHA population. Currently, there are no evidence‐based suicide prevention programs specific to sexual minority populations. Further research is needed to characterize the experience of LGB Veterans at risk for suicide and to determine how VA suicide prevention efforts reach vulnerable LGB Veterans. Tailoring to LGB Veterans may be necessary to enhance current treatment and prevention efforts. Implementing standardized data elements in the EHR that allow Veterans to self‐report their sexual orientation, and fostering safe and affirming clinical environments in which they can do so, will be critical to facilitate intervention and health services research to address disparities in suicide.

Large observational data networks that leverage routine clinical practice data in electronic health records (EHRs) are critical resources for research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data normalization is a key challenge for the secondary use of EHRs for COVID-19 research across institutions. In this study, we addressed the challenge of automating the normalization of COVID-19 diagnostic tests, which are critical data elements, but for which controlled terminology terms were published after clinical implementation. We developed a simple but effective rule-based tool called COVID-19 TestNorm to automatically normalize local COVID-19 testing names to standard LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) codes. COVID-19 TestNorm was developed and evaluated using 568 test names collected from 8 healthcare systems. Our results show that it could achieve an accuracy of 97.4% on an independent test set. COVID-19 TestNorm is available as an open-source package for developers and as an online Web application for end users (https://clamp.uth.edu/covid/loinc.php). We believe that it will be a useful tool to support secondary use of EHRs for research on COVID-19.

Background Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is the clinical standard for assessing kidney function and staging chronic kidney disease. Automated reporting of eGFR using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation was first implemented within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2007 with staggered adoption across laboratories. When automated eGFR are not used or unavailable, values are retrospectively calculated using clinical and demographic data that are currently available in the electronic health record (EHR). Due to the dynamic nature of EHRs, current data may not always match past data. Whether and to what extent the practice of re-calculating eGFR on retrospective data differs from using the automated values is unknown. Methods We assessed clinical data for patients enrolled in VA who had their first automated eGFR lab in 2013.We extracted the eGFR value, the corresponding serum creatinine value, and patient race, gender, and date of birth from the EHR. The MDRD equation was applied to retrospectively calculate eGFR. Stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined using both eGFR values. We used Bland–Altman plots and percent agreement to assess the difference between the automated and calculated values. We developed an algorithm to select the most parsimonious parameter set to explain the difference in values and used chart review on a small subsample of patients to determine if one approach more accurately describes the patient at the time of eGFR measurement. Results We evaluated eGFR data pairs from 266,084 patients. Approximately 33.0% (n = 86,747) of eGFR values differed between automated and retrospectively calculated methods. The majority of discordant pairs were classified as the same CKD stage (n = 74,542, 85.93%). The Bland–Altman plot showed differences in the data pairs were centered near zero (mean difference: 0.8 mL/min/1.73m2) with 95% limits of agreement between − 6.4 and 8.0. A change in recorded age explained 95.6% (n = 78,903) of discordant values and 85.02% (n = 9371) of the discordant stages. Conclusions Values of retrospectively calculated eGFR can differ from automated values, but do not always result in a significant classification change. In very large datasets these small differences could become significant.

Background: Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating healthcare interventions and, more generally, add to the medical knowledge related to the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of diseases and conditions. Recent literature continues to identify health informatics methods that can help improve study efficiency throughout the life cycle of a clinical trial. Electronic medical record (EMR) data provides a mechanism to facilitate clinical trial research during the study planning and execution phases, and ultimately, can be utilized to enhance recruitment. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a strong history of clinical and epidemiological research with over four decades of data collected from Veterans it has served nationwide. The VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) provides VA research investigators with a nationwide view of high-value VA patient data. Within VA, the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) is a consortium of nine sites that are part of an embedded clinical research infrastructure intended to provide systematic site-level solutions to issues that arise during the conduct of VA CSP clinical research. This paper describes the collaboration initiated by the Salt Lake City (SLC) node site to bring informatics and clinical trials together to enhance study planning and recruitment within the VA. Methods: The SLC VA Medical Center physically houses both VINCI and a node site and the co-location of these two groups prompted a natural collaboration on both a local and national level. One of the functions of the SLC NODES is to enhance recruitment and promote the success of CSP projects. VINCI supports these efforts by providing VA researchers access to potential population pools. VINCI can provide 1) feasibility data during study planning, and 2) active patient lists during recruitment. The process for CSP study teams to utilize these services involves regulatory documentation, development of queries, revisions to the initial data request, and ongoing communications with several key study personnel including the requesting research team, study statisticians, and VINCI data managers. Results: The early efforts of SLC NODES and VINCI aimed to provide patient lists exclusively to the SLC CSP study teams for the following purposes: 1) increasing recruitment for trials that were struggling to meet their respective enrollment goals, and 2) decreasing the time required by study coordinators to complete chart review activities. This effort was expanded to include multiple CSP sites and studies. To date, SLC NODES has facilitated the delivery of these VINCI services to nine active CSP studies. Conclusion: The ability of clinical trial study teams to successfully plan and execute their respective trials is contingent upon their proficiency in obtaining data that will help them efficiently and effectively recruit and enroll eligible participants. This collaboration demonstrates that the utilization of a model that partners two distinct entities, with similar objectives, was effective in the provision of feasibility and patient lists to clinical trial study teams and facilitation of clinical trial research within a large, integrated healthcare system. Keywords: Clinical trial recruitment, Clinical informatics, Cooperative studies program (CSP), Network of dedicated enrollment sites (NODES), VA informatics and computing infrastructure (VINCI)

Background Current clinical guidelines recommend epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutational testing in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to predict the benefit of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib as first-line treatment. Proteomic (VeriStrat) testing is recommended for patients with EGFR negative or unknown status when erlotinib is being considered. Departure from this clinical algorithm can increase costs and may result in worse outcomes. We examined EGFR and proteomic testing among patients with NSCLC within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We explored adherence to guidelines and the impact of test results on treatment decisions and cost of care. Methods Proteomic and EGFR test results from 2013 to 2015 were merged with VA electronic health records and pharmacy data. Chart reviews were conducted. Cases were categorized based on the appropriateness of testing and treatment. Results Of the 69 patients with NSCLC who underwent proteomic testing, 33 (48%) were EGFR-negative and 36 (52%) did not have documented EGFR status. We analyzed 138 clinical decisions surrounding EGFR/proteomic testing and erlotinib treatment. Most decisions (105, or 76%) were concordant with clinical practice guidelines. However, for 24 (17%) decisions documentation of testing or justification of treatment was inadequate, and 9 (7%) decisions represented clear departures from guidelines. Conclusion EGFR testing, the least expensive clinical intervention analyzed in this study, was significantly underutilized or undocumented. The records of more than half of the patients lacked information on EGFR status. Our analysis illustrated several clinical scenarios where the timing of proteomic testing and erlotinib diverged from the recommended algorithm, resulting in excessive costs of care with no documented improvements in health outcomes.

Background Hydroxychloroquine, a drug commonly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, has received much negative publicity for adverse events associated with its authorisation for emergency use to treat patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We studied the safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, to determine the risk associated with its use in routine care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods In this multinational, retrospective study, new user cohort studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 18 years or older and initiating hydroxychloroquine were compared with those initiating sulfasalazine and followed up over 30 days, with 16 severe adverse events studied. Self-controlled case series were done to further establish safety in wider populations, and included all users of hydroxychloroquine regardless of rheumatoid arthritis status or indication. Separately, severe adverse events associated with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (compared with hydroxychloroquine plus amoxicillin) were studied. Data comprised 14 sources of claims data or electronic medical records from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate calibrated hazard ratios (HRs) according to drug use. Estimates were pooled where the I2 value was less than 0·4. Findings The study included 956 374 users of hydroxychloroquine, 310 350 users of sulfasalazine, 323 122 users of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, and 351 956 users of hydroxychloroquine plus amoxicillin. No excess risk of severe adverse events was identified when 30-day hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were compared. Self-controlled case series confirmed these findings. However, long-term use of hydroxychloroquine appeared to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality (calibrated HR 1·65 [95% CI 1·12–2·44]). Addition of azithromycin appeared to be associated with an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (calibrated HR 2·19 [95% CI 1·22–3·95]), chest pain or angina (1·15 [1·05–1·26]), and heart failure (1·22 [1·02–1·45]). Interpretation Hydroxychloroquine treatment appears to have no increased risk in the short term among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but in the long term it appears to be associated with excess cardiovascular mortality. The addition of azithromycin increases the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular mortality even in the short term. We call for careful consideration of the benefit–risk trade-off when counselling those on hydroxychloroquine treatment. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Senior Research Fellowship programme, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research and Development, IQVIA, Korea Health Industry Development Institute through the Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic of Korea, Versus Arthritis, UK Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership, Foundation Alfonso Martin Escudero, Innovation Fund Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council Open Fund Large Collaborative Grant, VINCI, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.

BackgroundTherapeutic inhibition of PCSK9 protects against coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemic stroke (IS). The impact on other diseases remains less well characterized.MethodsWe created a genetic risk score (GRS) forPCSK9using four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at or near thePCSK9locus known to impact lower LDL-Cholesterol (LDL-C): rs11583680, rs11591147, rs2479409, and rs11206510. We then used our GRS to calculate weighted odds ratios reflecting the impact of a genetically determined 10 mg/dL decrease in LDL-C on several pre-specified phenotypes including CAD, IS, peripheral artery disease (PAD), abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), type 2 diabetes, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. Finally, we used our weighted GRS to perform a phenome-wide association study.ResultsGenetic and electronic health record data that passed quality control was available in 312,097 individuals, (227,490 White participants, 58,907 Black participants, and 25,700 Hispanic participants).PCSK9mediated reduction in LDL-C was associated with a reduced risk of CAD and AAA in trans-ethnic meta-analysis (CAD OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.80–0.87], p = 6.0 x 10−21; AAA OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68–0.86], p = 2.9 x 10−06). Significant protective effects were noted for PAD in White individuals (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.71–0.97], p = 2.3 x 10−04) but not in other genetic ancestries. Genetically reduced PCSK9 function associated with a reduced risk of dementia in trans-ethnic meta-analysis (OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.78–0.93], p = 5.0 x 10−04).ConclusionsGenetically reduced PCSK9 function results in a reduction in risk of several important extra-coronary atherosclerotic phenotypes in addition to known effects on CAD and IS, including PAD and AAA. We also highlight a novel reduction in risk of dementia, supporting a well-recognized vascular component to cognitive impairment and an opportunity for therapeutic repositioning.

We investigated type 2 diabetes (T2D) genetic susceptibility in a multi-ethnic meta-analysis of 228,499 cases and 1,178,783 controls in the Million Veteran Program (MVP) and other biobanks. We identified 558 autosomal and 10 X-chromosome T2D-associated variants, of which 286 autosomal and 7 X-chromosome variants were previously unreported. Ancestry-specific analyses identified 25 additional novel T2D-susceptibility variants. Transcriptome-wide association analysis detected 3,568 T2D-associations with T2D-colocalized genetically predicted gene expression of 804 genes in 52 tissues, of which 687 are novel. Fifty-four of these genes are known to interact with FDA-approved drugs and chemical compounds. T2D polygenic risk score was strongly associated with increased the risk of T2D-related retinopathy, and additionally showed evidence for association with chronic kidney disease (CKD), neuropathy, and peripheral artery disease (PAD). We investigated the genetic etiology of T2D-related vascular outcomes in the MVP and observed statistical SNP-T2D interactions at 13 variants, including 3 for coronary heart disease, 1 for PAD, 2 for stroke, 4 for retinopathy, 2 for CKD, and 1 for neuropathy. Our findings may identify potential novel therapeutic targets for T2D and genomic pathways that link T2D and its vascular outcomes.

International audience; In this trans-ethnic multi-omic study, we reinterpret the genetic architecture of blood pressure to identify genes, tissues, phenomes and medication contexts of blood pressure homeostasis. We discovered 208 novel common blood pressure SNPs and 53 rare variants in genome-wide association studies of systolic, diastolic and pulse pressure in up to 776,078 participants from the Million Veteran Program (MVP) and collaborating studies, with analysis of the blood pressure clinical phenome in MVP. Our transcriptome-wide association study detected 4,043 blood pressure associations with genetically predicted gene expression of 840 genes in 45 tissues, and mouse renal single-cell RNA sequencing identified upregulated blood pressure genes in kidney tubule cells.

Objective: To describe a framework for leveraging big data for research and quality improvement purposes and demonstrate implementation of the framework for design of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Colonoscopy Collaborative.Methods: We propose that research utilizing large-scale electronic health records (EHRs) can be approached in a 4 step framework: 1) Identify data sources required to answer research question; 2) Determine whether variables are available as structured or free-text data; 3) Utilize a rigorous approach to refine variables and assess data quality; 4) Create the analytic dataset and perform analyses. We describe implementation of the framework as part of the VA Colonoscopy Collaborative, which aims to leverage big data to 1) prospectively measure and report colonoscopy quality and 2) develop and validate a risk prediction model for colorectal cancer (CRC) and high-risk polyps.Results: Examples of implementation of the 4 step framework are provided. To date, we have identified 2,337,171 Veterans who have undergone colonoscopy between 1999 and 2014. Median age was 62 years, and 4.6 percent (n = 106,860) were female. We estimated that 2.6 percent (n = 60,517) had CRC diagnosed at baseline. An additional 1 percent (n = 24,483) had a new ICD-9 code-based diagnosis of CRC on follow up.Conclusion: We hope our framework may contribute to the dialogue on best practices to ensure high quality epidemiologic and quality improvement work. As a result of implementation of the framework, the VA Colonoscopy Collaborative holds great promise for 1) quantifying and providing novel understandings of colonoscopy outcomes, and 2) building a robust approach for nationwide VA colonoscopy quality reporting.

In observational studies, higher uric acid levels are associated with metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and kidney disease.The objective of this study is to examine whether reduction of plasma uric acid with febuxostat, a xanthine oxido reductase inhibitor, impacts adipose tissue oxidative stress, adipokines, and markers of systemic inflammation or kidney fibrosis.This was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.Academic university setting was used.Overweight or obese adults with hyperuricemia and type 2 diabetic nephropathy were included.Adipose tissue thiobarbituric acid reducing substances (TBARS) and adiponectin concentrations and urinary transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) were primary endpoints. Plasma C-reactive protein, high molecular weight-adiponectin, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and TBARS and albuminuria were among predefined secondary endpoints.Participants were randomly assigned to febuxostat (n = 40) or matching placebo (n = 40) and followed for 24 weeks.Baseline plasma uric acid levels were 426 ± 83 µmol/L; 95% completed the study. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined from 54 ± 17 mL/min/1.73 mRelatively modest sample size and short duration of follow-up.In this population with progressive diabetic nephropathy, febuxostat effectively reduced plasma uric acid. However, no detectable effects were observed for the prespecified primary or secondary endpoints.The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01350388).Dans les études observationnelles, des taux élevés d’acide urique sont associés à un syndrome métabolique, au diabète et à l’insuffisance rénale.Cette étude visait à déterminer si l’utilisation de febuxostat, un inhibiteur de la xanthine oxydoréductase, pour réduire le taux d’acide urique dans le plasma avait une incidence sur le stress oxydatif du tissu adipeux, les adipokines, les marqueurs de l’inflammation systémique ou sur la fibrose kystique.Il s’agit d’un essai à double insu, randomisé et contrôlé.L’étude s’est effectuée en contexte universitaire.Les participants à cette étude étaient des adultes obèses ou en surpoids, présentant une hyperuricémie ainsi qu’une néphropathie diabétique de type 2.Les critères principaux incluaient la concentration d’adiponectine et de substances réagissant avec l’acide thiobarbiturique (TBARS) dans les tissus adipeux, de même que le facteur de croissance transformant urinaire (TGF-β). Les critères secondaires incluaient les protéines C-réactives du plasma, l’adiponectine de poids moléculaire élevé, l’interleukine-6, le facteur de nécrose tumorale alpha, les TBARS ainsi que l’albuminurie.On a prescrit, de façon aléatoire, du febuxostat (n = 40) ou un placebo (n = 40) aux participants, et ces derniers ont été suivis sur une période de 24 semaines.Les valeurs initiales d’acide urique dans le plasma se situaient à 426 ± 83 µmol/L. La grande majorité des participants (95%) a complété l’étude. Le débit de filtration glomérulaire estimé a chuté de 54 ± 17 mL/min/1,73 mLa taille relativement modeste de l’échantillon, de même que la courte durée du suivi constituent les limites de l’étude.Dans la population observée, soit des patients atteints de néphropathie diabétique progressive, l’administration de fébuxostat a réduit de façon efficace les taux plasmatiques d’acide urique. Par ailleurs, aucun effet apparent n’a été observé sur les critères primaires et secondaires préétablis.Cette étude a été enregistrée sur clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01350388).

Introduction: Substantial amounts of clinically significant information are contained only within the narrative of the clinical notes in electronic medical records. v3NLP Framework is a set of best of breed functionalities developed to transform this information into structured data for use in quality improvement, research, population health surveillance, and decision support.Background: MetaMap, cTAKES and similar well known NLP tools do not have sufficient scalability out of the box. v3NLP Framework evolved out of the necessity to scale these tools up and provide a framework to customize and tune techniques to fit a variety of tasks, including document classification, tuned concept extraction for specific conditions, patient classification, and information retrieval.Innovation: Beyond scalability, several v3NLP Framework developed projects have been efficacy tested and benchmarked. While v3NLP Framework includes annotators, pipelines and applications, the functionalities enable developers to create novel annotators, put annotators into pipelines and scaled applications.Discussion: v3NLP Framework has been successfully utilized in many projects including general concept extraction, risk factors for homelessness among veterans, and identification of mentions of the presence of an indwelling urinary catheter. Projects as diverse as predicting colonization with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extracting references to military sexual trauma are being built using v3NLP Framework components.Conclusion: v3NLP Framework is a set of functionalities and components that provide Java developers the ability to create novel annotators, place annotators into pipelines, and applications to extract concepts from clinical text. There are scale-up and scale-out functionalities to process large numbers of records.

Objective Natural language processing (NLP) tasks are commonly decomposed into subtasks, chained together to form processing pipelines. The residual error produced in these subtasks propagates, adversely affecting the end objectives. Limited availability of annotated clinical data remains a barrier to reaching state-of-the-art operating characteristics using statistically based NLP tools in the clinical domain. Here we explore the unique linguistic constructions of clinical texts and demonstrate the loss in operating characteristics when out-of-the-box part-ofspeech (POS) tagging tools are applied to the clinical domain. We test a domain adaptation approach integrating a novel lexical-generation probability rule used in a transformation-based learner to boost POS performance on clinical narratives. Methods Two target corpora from independent healthcare institutions were constructed from high frequency clinical narratives. Four leading POS taggers with their out-of-the-box models trained from general English and biomedical abstracts were evaluated against these clinical corpora. A high performing domain adaptation method, Easy Adapt, was compared to our newly proposed method ClinAdapt. Results The evaluated POS taggers drop in accuracy by 8.5–15% when tested on clinical narratives. The highest performing tagger reports an accuracy of 88.6%. Domain adaptation with Easy Adapt reports accuracies of 88.3–91.0% on clinical texts. ClinAdapt reports 93.2–93.9%. Conclusions ClinAdapt successfully boosts POS tagging performance through domain adaptation requiring a modest amount of annotated clinical data. Improving the performance of critical NLP subtasks is expected to reduce pipeline error propagation leading to better overall results on complex processing tasks.

Background Accurate information is needed to direct healthcare systems’ efforts to control methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Assembling complete and correct microbiology data is vital to understanding and addressing the multiple drug-resistant organisms in our hospitals. Methods Herein, we describe a system that securely gathers microbiology data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) network of databases. Using natural language processing methods, we applied an information extraction process to extract organisms and susceptibilities from the free-text data. We then validated the extraction against independently derived electronic data and expert annotation. Results We estimate that the collected microbiology data are 98.5% complete and that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was extracted accurately 99.7% of the time. Conclusions Applying natural language processing methods to microbiology records appears to be a promising way to extract accurate and useful nosocomial pathogen surveillance data. Both scientific inquiry and the data’s reliability will be dependent on the surveillance system’s capability to compare from multiple sources and circumvent systematic error. The dataset constructed and methods used for this investigation could contribute to a comprehensive infectious disease surveillance system or other pressing needs.

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 studySettingElectronic 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 deathResultsWe 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 topicPatients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications.There is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions.What this study addsMost people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities.Patients 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.A variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases.For 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.

ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who undergo dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).DesignA network cohort study.SettingSeven databases from the United States containing routinely-collected patient data: HealthVerity, Premier, IQVIA Hospital CDM, 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 Results842,928 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were included (22,887 from HealthVerity, 77,853 from IQVIA Hospital CDM, 533,997 from IQVIA Open Claims, 36,717 from Optum EHR, 4,336 from OPTUM SES, 156,187 from Premier, and 10,951 from VA-OMOP). Across the six databases, 35,192 (4.17% [95% CI: 4.13% to 4.22%]) patients received dialysis, 6,950 (0.82% [0.81% to 0.84%]) had a tracheostomy, and 1,568 (0.19% [95% CI: 0.18% to 0.20%]) patients underwent ECMO over the 30 days following hospitalization. Use of ECMO was more common among patients who were younger, male, and with fewer comorbidities. Tracheostomy was broadly used for a similar proportion of patients regardless of age, sex, or comorbidity. While dialysis was generally 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.

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-Hodgkin’s 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.