Clinical and genetic risk factors for acute incident venous Thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with COVID-19.

Importance: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory COVID-19 is controversial. In addition, the association of vaccination with COVID-19-related VTE and relevant clinical and genetic risk factors remain to be elucidated. Objective: To quantify the association between ambulatory COVID-19 and short-term risk of VTE, study the potential protective role of vaccination, and investigate clinical and genetic risk factors for post-COVID-19 VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from UK Biobank included participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection that was confirmed by a positive polymerase chain test reaction result between March 1, 2020, and September 3, 2021, who were then propensity score matched to COVID-19-naive people during the same period. Participants with a history of VTE who used antithrombotic drugs (1 year before index dates) or tested positive in hospital were excluded. Exposures: First infection with SARS-CoV-2, age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, obesity, vaccination status, and inherited thrombophilia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite VTE, including deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which occurred 30 days after the infection. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using cause-specific Cox models. Results: In 18 818 outpatients with COVID-19 (10 580 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [8.0] years) and 93 179 matched uninfected participants (52 177 women [56.0%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [7.9] years), the infection was associated with an increased risk of VTE in 30 days (incidence rate of 50.99 and 2.37 per 1000 person-years for infected and uninfected people, respectively; HR, 21.42; 95% CI, 12.63-36.31). However, risk was substantially attenuated among the fully vaccinated (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.82-19.5; interaction P = .02). In patients with COVID-19, older age, male sex, and obesity were independently associated with higher risk, with adjusted HRs of 1.87 (95% CI, 1.50-2.33) per 10 years, 1.69 (95% CI, 1.30-2.19), and 1.83 (95% CI, 1.28-2.61), respectively. Further, inherited thrombophilia was associated with an HR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.15-3.66) for post-COVID-19 VTE. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19, ambulatory COVID-19 was associated with a substantially increased risk of incident VTE, but this risk was greatly reduced in fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infection. Older age, male sex, and obesity were clinical risk factors for post-COVID-19 VTE; factor V Leiden thrombophilia was additionally associated with double the risk, comparable with the risk of 10-year aging. These findings may reinforce the need for vaccination, inform VTE risk stratification, and call for targeted VTE prophylaxis strategies for unvaccinated outpatients with COVID-19

Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities : a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting

Background Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials. Objectives Stage 1 – replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 – compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1. Design This was a cohort study. Setting Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data. Participants Stage 1 – people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 – participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3. Intervention The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs. Results In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of < 2 points using propensity score stratification; no significant difference was observed using inverse probability weighting. Unicompartmental knee replacement more than halved the risk of venous thromboembolism [relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; relative risk 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.96) using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement was not associated with myocardial infarction or prosthetic joint infection using either method. In the long term, unicompartmental knee replacement had double the revision risk of total knee replacement [hazard ratio 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.38) using propensity score stratification; hazard ratio 2.60 (95% confidence interval 1.94 to 3.47) using inverse probability weighting], but half of the mortality [hazard ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; insignificant effect using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year gains than total knee replacement for stage 2 participants. Limitations Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias. Conclusions Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients. Future work Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices. Trial registration This trial is registered as EUPAS17435

Incident Use of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus During the COVID‐19 Pandemic

Objective: We studied whether the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID‐19 resulted in supply shortages for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: We used US claims data (IQVIA PHARMETRICS® Plus for Academics [PHARMETRICS]) and hospital electronic records from Spain (Institut Municipal d'Assistència Sanitària Information System [IMASIS]) to estimate monthly rates of HCQ use between January 2019 and March 2022, in the general population and in patients with RA and SLE. Methotrexate (MTX) use was estimated as a control. Results: More than 13.5 million individuals (13,311,811 PHARMETRICS, 207,646 IMASIS) were included in the general population cohort. RA and SLE cohorts enrolled 135,259 and 39,295 patients, respectively, in PHARMETRICS. Incidence of MTX and HCQ were stable before March 2020. On March 2020, the incidence of HCQ increased by 9‐ and 67‐fold in PHARMETRICS and IMASIS, respectively, and decreased in May 2020. Usage rates of HCQ went back to prepandemic trends in Spain but remained high in the United States, mimicking waves of COVID‐19. No significant changes in HCQ use were noted among patients with RA and SLE. MTX use rates decreased during HCQ approval period for COVID‐19 treatment. Conclusion: Use of HCQ increased dramatically in the general population in both Spain and the United States during March and April 2020. Whereas Spain returned to prepandemic rates after the first wave, use of HCQ remained high and followed waves of COVID‐19 in the United States. However, we found no evidence of general shortages in the use of HCQ for both RA and SLE in the United States

Incident Use of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: We studied whether the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 resulted in supply shortages for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: We used US claims data (IQVIA PHARMETRICS® Plus for Academics [PHARMETRICS]) and hospital electronic records from Spain (Institut Municipal d'Assistència Sanitària Information System [IMASIS]) to estimate monthly rates of HCQ use between January 2019 and March 2022, in the general population and in patients with RA and SLE. Methotrexate (MTX) use was estimated as a control. Results: More than 13.5 million individuals (13,311,811 PHARMETRICS, 207,646 IMASIS) were included in the general population cohort. RA and SLE cohorts enrolled 135,259 and 39,295 patients, respectively, in PHARMETRICS. Incidence of MTX and HCQ were stable before March 2020. On March 2020, the incidence of HCQ increased by 9- and 67-fold in PHARMETRICS and IMASIS, respectively, and decreased in May 2020. Usage rates of HCQ went back to prepandemic trends in Spain but remained high in the United States, mimicking waves of COVID-19. No significant changes in HCQ use were noted among patients with RA and SLE. MTX use rates decreased during HCQ approval period for COVID-19 treatment. Conclusion: Use of HCQ increased dramatically in the general population in both Spain and the United States during March and April 2020. Whereas Spain returned to prepandemic rates after the first wave, use of HCQ remained high and followed waves of COVID-19 in the United States. However, we found no evidence of general shortages in the use of HCQ for both RA and SLE in the United States.</p

Incident Use of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: We studied whether the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 resulted in supply shortages for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: We used US claims data (IQVIA PHARMETRICS® Plus for Academics [PHARMETRICS]) and hospital electronic records from Spain (Institut Municipal d'Assistència Sanitària Information System [IMASIS]) to estimate monthly rates of HCQ use between January 2019 and March 2022, in the general population and in patients with RA and SLE. Methotrexate (MTX) use was estimated as a control. Results: More than 13.5 million individuals (13,311,811 PHARMETRICS, 207,646 IMASIS) were included in the general population cohort. RA and SLE cohorts enrolled 135,259 and 39,295 patients, respectively, in PHARMETRICS. Incidence of MTX and HCQ were stable before March 2020. On March 2020, the incidence of HCQ increased by 9- and 67-fold in PHARMETRICS and IMASIS, respectively, and decreased in May 2020. Usage rates of HCQ went back to prepandemic trends in Spain but remained high in the United States, mimicking waves of COVID-19. No significant changes in HCQ use were noted among patients with RA and SLE. MTX use rates decreased during HCQ approval period for COVID-19 treatment. Conclusion: Use of HCQ increased dramatically in the general population in both Spain and the United States during March and April 2020. Whereas Spain returned to prepandemic rates after the first wave, use of HCQ remained high and followed waves of COVID-19 in the United States. However, we found no evidence of general shortages in the use of HCQ for both RA and SLE in the United States.</p

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19:an international, open science, cohort analysis

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 &gt;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.</p

Risk of depression, suicide and psychosis with hydroxychloroquine treatment for rheumatoid arthritis:a multinational network cohort study

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 &lt;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.</p

Opioid use, post-operative complications, and implant survival after unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: a population-based network study

Background There is uncertainty around whether to use unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or total knee replacement (TKR) for individuals with osteoarthritis confined to a single compartment of the knee. We aimed to emulate the design of the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) using routinely collected data to assess whether the efficacy results reported in the trial translate into effectiveness in routine practice, and to assess comparative safety. Methods We did a population-based network study using data from four US and one UK health-care database, part of the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network. The inclusion criteria were the same as those for TOPKAT; briefly, we identified patients aged at least 40 years with osteoarthritis who had undergone UKR or TKR and who had available data for at least one year prior to surgery. Patients were excluded if they had evidence of previous knee arthroplasty, knee fracture, knee surgery (except diagnostic), rheumatoid arthritis, infammatory arthropathies, or septic arthritis. Opioid use from 91–365 days after surgery, as a proxy for persistent pain, was assessed for all participants in all databases. Postoperative complications (ie, venous thromboembolism, infection, readmission, and mortality) were assessed over the 60 days after surgery and implant survival (as measured by revision procedures) was assessed over the 5 years after surgery. Outcomes were assessed in all databases, except for readmission, which was assessed in three of the databases, and mortality, which was assessed in two of the databases. Propensity score matched Cox proportional hazards models were fitted for each outcome. Calibrated hazard ratios (cHRs) were generated for each database to account for observed differences in control outcomes, and cHRs were then combined using meta-analysis. Findings 33 867 individuals who received UKR and 557 831 individuals who received TKR between Jan 1, 2005, and April 30, 2018, were eligible for matching. 32 379 with UKR and 250 377 with TKR were propensity score matched and informed the analyses. UKR was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative opioid use (cHR from meta-analysis 0·81, 95% CI 0·73–0·90) and a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism (0·62, 0·36–0·95), whereas no difference was seen for infection (0·85, 0·51–1·37) and readmission (0·79, 0·47–1·25). Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether there was a reduction in risk of mortality. UKR was also associated with an increased risk of revision (1·64, 1·40–1·94). Interpretation UKR was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative opioid use compared with TKR, which might indicate a reduced risk of persistent pain after surgery. UKR was associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism but an increased risk of revision compared with TKR. These findings can help to inform shared decision making for individuals eligible for knee replacement surgery. Funding EU/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations Innovative Medicines Initiative (2) Joint Undertaking (EHDEN)

Characteristics and outcomes of over 300,000 patients with COVID-19 and history of cancer in the United States and Spain

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 ¼ 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.</p