COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator: A parallel analysis to describe the use of Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Mobilizing data during a crisis: Building rapid evidence pipelines using multi-institutional real world data

The COVID-19 pandemic generated tremendous interest in using real world data (RWD). Many consortia across the public and private sectors formed in 2020 with the goal of rapidly producing high-quality evidence from RWD to guide medical decision-making, public health priorities, and more. Experiences were gathered from five large consortia on rapid multi-institutional evidence generation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Insights have been compiled across five dimensions: consortium composition, governance structure and alignment of priorities, data sharing, data analysis, and evidence dissemination. The purpose of this piece is to offer guidance on building large-scale multi-institutional RWD analysis pipelines for future public health issues. The composition of each consortium was largely influenced by existing collaborations. A central set of priorities for evidence generation guided each consortium, however different approaches to governance emerged. Challenges surrounding limited access to clinical data due to various contributors were overcome in unique ways. While all consortia used different methods to construct and analyze patient cohorts ranging from centralized to federated approaches, all proved effective for generating meaningful real-world evidence. Actionable recommendations for clinical practice and public health agencies were made from translating insights from consortium analyses. Each consortium was successful in rapidly answering questions about COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment despite all taking slightly different approaches to data sharing and analysis. Leveraging RWD, leveraged in a manner that applies scientific rigor and transparency, can complement higher-level evidence and serve as an important adjunct to clinical trials to quickly guide policy and critical care, especially for a pandemic response.

Relative Effectiveness of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination and Booster Dose Combinations Among 18.9 Million Vaccinated Adults During the Early Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Period-United States, 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022

BACKGROUND

Small sample sizes have limited prior studies' ability to capture severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially among Ad26.COV2.S vaccine recipients. This study of 18.9 million adults aged ≥18 years assessed relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in three recipient cohorts: (1) primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and Ad26.COV2.S booster (2 Ad26.COV2.S), (2) primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and mRNA booster (Ad26.COV2.S+mRNA), (3) two doses of primary mRNA vaccine and mRNA booster (3 mRNA).

METHODS

We analyzed two de-identified datasets linked using privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL): insurance claims and retail pharmacy COVID-19 vaccination data. We assessed the presence of COVID-19 diagnosis during January 1-March 31, 2022 in: (1) any claim, (2) outpatient claim, (3) emergency department (ED) claim, (4) inpatient claim, and (5) inpatient claim with intensive care unit (ICU) admission. rVE for each outcome comparing three recipient cohorts (reference: two Ad26.COV2.S doses) was estimated from adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Compared with two Ad26.COV2.S doses, Ad26.COV2.S+mRNA and three mRNA doses were more effective against all COVID-19 outcomes, including 57% (95% CI: 52-62) and 62% (95% CI: 58-65) rVE against an ED visit; 44% (95% CI: 34-52) and 54% (95% CI: 48-59) rVE against hospitalization; and 48% (95% CI: 22-66) and 66% (95% CI: 53-75) rVE against ICU admission, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that Ad26.COV2.S + mRNA doses were as good as three doses of mRNA, and better than two doses of Ad26.COV2.S. Vaccination continues to be an important preventive measure for reducing the public health impact of COVID-19.

Describing characteristics and treatment patterns of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by race and ethnicity in a national RWD during the early months of the pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To describe differences by race and ethnicity in treatment patterns among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US from March-August 2020.

METHODS

Among patients in de-identified Optum electronic health record data hospitalized with COVID-19 (March-August 2020), we estimated odds ratios of receiving COVID-19 treatments of interest (azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and other steroids) at hospital admission, by race and ethnicity, after adjusting for key covariates of interest.

RESULTS

After adjusting for key covariates, Black/African American patients were less likely to receive dexamethasone (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.71, 0.96]) and more likely to receive other steroids corticosteroids (adj. OR [95% CI]: 2.13 [1.90, 2.39]), relative to White patients. Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to receive dexamethasone than Not Hispanic/Latino patients (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.58, 0.82]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that COVID-19 treatments patients received in Optum varied by race and ethnicity after adjustment for other possible explanatory factors. In the face of rapidly evolving treatment landscapes, policies are needed to ensure equitable access to novel and repurposed therapeutics to avoid disparities in care by race and ethnicity.

COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, compared with influenza: Insights from a large US cohort

Introduction

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is typically compared with influenza to contextualize its health risks. SARS-CoV-2 has been linked with coagulation disturbances including arterial thrombosis, leading to considerable interest in antithrombotic therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the independent thromboembolic risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with influenza remains incompletely understood. We evaluated the adjusted risks of thromboembolic events after a diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with influenza in a large retrospective cohort.

Methods

We used a US-based electronic health record (EHR) dataset linked with insurance claims to identify adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. We identified influenza patients diagnosed between October 1, 2018 and April 31, 2019. Primary outcomes [venous composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT); arterial composite of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI)] and secondary outcomes were assessed 90 days post-diagnosis. Propensity scores (PS) were calculated using demographic, clinical, and medication variables. PS-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

There were 417,975 COVID-19 patients (median age 57y, 61% women), and 345,934 influenza patients (median age 47y, 66% women). Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had higher venous thromboembolic risk (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.38–1.70), but not arterial thromboembolic risk (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95–1.10). Secondary analyses demonstrated similar risk for ischemic stroke (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98–1.25) and MI (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85–1.03) and higher risk for DVT (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19–1.56) and PE (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57–2.10) in patients with COVID-19.

Conclusion

In a large retrospective US cohort, COVID-19 was independently associated with higher 90-day risk for venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, as compared with influenza. These findings may inform crucial knowledge gaps regarding the specific thromboembolic risks of COVID-19.

Use of Real-World Evidence to Drive Drug Development Strategy and Inform Clinical Trial Design

Interest in real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to expedite and enrich the development of new biopharmaceutical products has proliferated in recent years, spurred by the 21st Century Cures Act in the United States and similar policy efforts in other countries, willingness by regulators to consider RWE in their decisions, demands from third-party payers, and growing concerns about the limitations of traditional clinical trials. Although much of the recent literature on RWE has focused on potential regulatory uses (e.g., product approvals in oncology or rare diseases based on single-arm trials with external control arms), this article reviews how biopharmaceutical companies can leverage RWE to inform internal decisions made throughout the product development process. Specifically, this article will review use of RWD to guide pipeline and portfolio strategy; use of novel sources of RWD to inform product development, use of RWD to inform clinical development, use of advanced analytics to harness "big" RWD, and considerations when using RWD to inform internal decisions. Topics discussed will include the use of molecular, clinicogenomic, medical imaging, radiomic, and patient-derived xenograft data to augment traditional sources of RWE, the use of RWD to inform clinical trial eligibility criteria, enrich trial population based on predicted response, select endpoints, estimate sample size, understand disease progression, and enhance diversity of participants, the growing use of data tokenization and advanced analytical techniques based on artificial intelligence in RWE, as well as the importance of data quality and methodological transparency in RWE.

Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, with or without azithromycin, in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to normalization of body temperature, incidence of adverse events and incidence of QT prolongations. Results: Fifty-one studies (n = 61,221) were included. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine showed no efficacy in all primary efficacy outcomes, but was associated with increased odds of QT prolongations. Conclusion: Due to a lack of efficacy and increased odds of cardiac adverse events, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine should not be used for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, compared with influenza: Insights from a large US cohort

Introduction

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is typically compared with influenza to contextualize its health risks. SARS-CoV-2 has been linked with coagulation disturbances including arterial thrombosis, leading to considerable interest in antithrombotic therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the independent thromboembolic risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with influenza remains incompletely understood. We evaluated the adjusted risks of thromboembolic events after a diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with influenza in a large retrospective cohort.

Methods

We used a US-based electronic health record (EHR) dataset linked with insurance claims to identify adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. We identified influenza patients diagnosed between October 1, 2018 and April 31, 2019. Primary outcomes [venous composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT); arterial composite of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI)] and secondary outcomes were assessed 90 days post-diagnosis. Propensity scores (PS) were calculated using demographic, clinical, and medication variables. PS-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

There were 417,975 COVID-19 patients (median age 57y, 61% women), and 345,934 influenza patients (median age 47y, 66% women). Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had higher venous thromboembolic risk (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.38–1.70), but not arterial thromboembolic risk (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95–1.10). Secondary analyses demonstrated similar risk for ischemic stroke (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98–1.25) and MI (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85–1.03) and higher risk for DVT (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19–1.56) and PE (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57–2.10) in patients with COVID-19.

Conclusion

In a large retrospective US cohort, COVID-19 was independently associated with higher 90-day risk for venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, as compared with influenza. These findings may inform crucial knowledge gaps regarding the specific thromboembolic risks of COVID-19.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Aim of this study is to analyse the characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) inpatients infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted, including coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who developed VAP from March to May 2020 (VAP COVID-19). They were compared to non-COVID-19 patients who developed VAP from January 2011 to December 2019 (VAP NO COVID-19) and COVID-19 patients who did not develop VAP (NO VAP COVID-19).

RESULTS

Overall, 42 patients were included in the VAP COVID-19group, 37 in the NO VAP COVID-19 group, and 188 in the VAP NO COVID-19 group. VAP COVID-19 had significantly higher rates of shock (71% vs. 48%, p = 0.009), death in ICU (52% vs. 30%, p = 0.011), VAP recurrence (28% vs. 4%, p < 0.0001), positive blood culture (26% vs. 13%, p = 0.038), and polymicrobial culture (28% vs. 13%, p = 0.011) than VAP NO COVID-19. At the multivariate analysis, death in patients with VAP was associated with shock (p = 0.032) and SARS-CoV-2 (p = 0.008) infection.

CONCLUSIONS

VAP in COVID-19 patients is associated with shock, bloodstream, and polymicrobial infections.