Neighborhood characteristics are associated with residents healthcare use. However, we understand less about these relationships among formerly homeless persons, who often have complex healthcare needs, including mental health and substance use disorders. Among formerly homeless Veterans, we examined: (a) how neighborhood characteristics are associated with Veteran Health Administration (VHA) healthcare use and, (b) if these relationships varied by Veterans level of healthcare need. We obtained data on our cohort of 711 Veterans housed through VHAs permanent supportive housing program (HUD-VASH) in 2016-2017 from VHAs Homeless Registry, VHAs electronic health records, and the U.S. Census. We studied the relationships between neighborhood characteristics (% Veteran, % in poverty, % unemployed, % using public transportation, and % vacant properties) and VA healthcare use (primary care visits, outpatient mental health visits, and high use of emergency departments [> 4 visits]) using mixed-effects logistic and negative binomial regression models, controlling for patient demographics. We further examined moderation by patient healthcare need (calculated from cost and clinical data). We found that veterans in neighborhoods with higher percentages of residents who (a) were Veterans or (b) used public transportation were more likely to have high emergency department use. Those in neighborhoods with higher public transportation use had more primary care visits while those in neighborhoods with more property vacancies had more outpatient mental health visits. Among those with high healthcare needs, residents of areas with more Veterans had higher emergency department use. Promoting public transportation use and social engagement with other Veterans in residential neighborhoods may influence HUD-VASH Veterans VA healthcare use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Sleep disturbance has emerged as an independent, mechanistic, and modifiable risk factor for suicide. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people disproportionately experience sleep disturbance and are at higher risk of death by suicide relative to cisgender and/or heterosexual individuals. The present narrative review evaluates nascent research related to sleep disturbance and suicide-related thoughts and behaviors (STBs) among SGM populations, and discusses how experiences of minority stress may explain heightened risk among SGM people. Although there is a growing understanding of the link between sleep disturbance and STBs, most research has not been conducted in SGM populations or has not examined suicide as an outcome. Research is needed to examine whether and how aspects of sleep disturbances relate to STBs among SGM people in order to better tailor sleep treatments for SGM populations.

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 investigated whether we could use influenza data to develop prediction models for COVID-19 to increase the speed at which prediction models can reliably be developed and validated early in a pandemic. We developed COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patients risk of hospital admission with pneumonia (COVER-H), hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms and tested this in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries containing data collected on or before 4/27/2020. We used a 2-step process to develop 3 scores using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The first step was to create a data-driven model using LASSO regularized logistic regression, the covariates of which were used to develop aggregate covariates for the second step where the COVER scores were developed using a smaller set of features. These 3 COVER scores were then externally validated on patients with 1) influenza or flu-like symptoms and 2) confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across 5 databases from South Korea, Spain, and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death, and iii) death in the 30 days after index date. RESULTS: Overall, 44,507 COVID-19 patients were included for model validation. We identified 7 predictors (history of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease) which combined with age and sex discriminated which patients would experience any of our three outcomes. The models achieved good performance in influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. For COVID-19 the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69-0.81, COVER-I: 0.73-0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72-0.90. Calibration varied across the validations with some of the COVID-19 validations being less well calibrated than the influenza validations. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrated the utility of using a proxy disease to develop a prediction model. The 3 COVER models with 9-predictors that were developed using influenza data perform well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality. The scores showed good discriminatory performance which transferred well to the COVID-19 population. There was some miscalibration in the COVID-19 validations, which is potentially due to the difference in symptom severity between the two diseases. A possible solution for this is to recalibrate the models in each location before use.

Objective

Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza.

Methods

A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization.

Results

We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%).

Conclusion

Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

Objective

To investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents.

Design

Multinational network cohort study.

Setting

Hospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea.

Participants

303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020.

Main outcome measures

Prescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19.

Results

Of the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from <5 (<2%) patients in China to 2165 (85.1%) in Spain), azithromycin (from 15 (4.9%) in China to 1473 (57.9%) in Spain), combined lopinavir and ritonavir (from 156 (<2%) in the VA-OMOP US to 2,652 (34.9%) in South Korea and 1285 (50.5%) in Spain), and umifenovir (0% in the US, South Korea, and Spain and 238 (78.3%) in China). Use of adjunctive drugs varied greatly, with the five most used treatments being enoxaparin, fluoroquinolones, ceftriaxone, vitamin D, and corticosteroids. Hydroxychloroquine use increased rapidly from March to April 2020 but declined steeply in May to June and remained low for the rest of the year. The use of dexamethasone and corticosteroids increased steadily during 2020.

Conclusions

Multiple drugs were used in the first few months of the covid-19 pandemic, with substantial geographical and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed drugs. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management 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.

Objectives

Concern has been raised in the rheumatology community regarding recent regulatory warnings that HCQ used in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic could cause acute psychiatric events. We aimed to study whether there is risk of incident depression, suicidal ideation or psychosis associated with HCQ as used for RA.

Methods

We performed a new-user cohort study using claims and electronic medical records from 10 sources and 3 countries (Germany, UK and USA). RA patients ≥18 years of age and initiating HCQ were compared with those initiating SSZ (active comparator) and followed up in the short (30 days) and long term (on treatment). Study outcomes included depression, suicide/suicidal ideation and hospitalization for psychosis. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate database-specific calibrated hazard ratios (HRs), with estimates pooled where I2 <40%.

Results

A total of 918 144 and 290 383 users of HCQ and SSZ, respectively, were included. No consistent risk of psychiatric events was observed with short-term HCQ (compared with SSZ) use, with meta-analytic HRs of 0.96 (95% CI 0.79, 1.16) for depression, 0.94 (95% CI 0.49, 1.77) for suicide/suicidal ideation and 1.03 (95% CI 0.66, 1.60) for psychosis. No consistent long-term risk was seen, with meta-analytic HRs of 0.94 (95% CI 0.71, 1.26) for depression, 0.77 (95% CI 0.56, 1.07) for suicide/suicidal ideation and 0.99 (95% CI 0.72, 1.35) for psychosis.

Conclusion

HCQ as used to treat RA does not appear to increase the risk of depression, suicide/suicidal ideation or psychosis compared with SSZ. No effects were seen in the short or long term. Use at a higher dose or for different indications needs further investigation.

Trial registration

Registered with EU PAS (reference no. EUPAS34497; http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm? id=34498). The full study protocol and analysis source code can be found at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Covid19EstimationHydroxychloroquine2.

Rationale: A common MUC5B gene polymorphism, rs35705950-T, is associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but its role in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and disease severity is unclear. Objectives: To assess whether rs35705950-T confers differential risk for clinical outcomes associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection among participants in the Million Veteran Program (MVP). Methods: The MUC5B rs35705950-T allele was directly genotyped among MVP participants; clinical events and comorbidities were extracted from the electronic health records. Associations between the incidence or severity of COVID-19 and rs35705950-T were analyzed within each ancestry group in the MVP followed by transancestry meta-analysis. Replication and joint meta-analysis were conducted using summary statistics from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (HGI). Sensitivity analyses with adjustment for additional covariates (body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, smoking, asbestosis, rheumatoid arthritis with interstitial lung disease, and IPF) and associations with post-COVID-19 pneumonia were performed in MVP subjects. Measurements and Main Results: The rs35705950-T allele was associated with fewer COVID-19 hospitalizations in transancestry meta-analyses within the MVP (N_cases = 4,325; N_controls = 507,640; OR = 0.89 [0.82-0.97]; P = 6.86 × 10^-3) and joint meta-analyses with the HGI (N_cases = 13,320; N_controls = 1,508,841; OR, 0.90 [0.86-0.95]; P = 8.99 × 10^-5). The rs35705950-T allele was not associated with reduced COVID-19 positivity in transancestry meta-analysis within the MVP (N_cases = 19,168/N_controls = 492,854; OR, 0.98 [0.95-1.01]; P = 0.06) but was nominally significant (P < 0.05) in the joint meta-analysis with the HGI (N_cases = 44,820; N_controls = 1,775,827; OR, 0.97 [0.95-1.00]; P = 0.03). Associations were not observed with severe outcomes or mortality. Among individuals of European ancestry in the MVP, rs35705950-T was associated with fewer post-COVID-19 pneumonia events (OR, 0.82 [0.72-0.93]; P = 0.001). Conclusions: The MUC5B variant rs35705950-T may confer protection in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

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.