We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

Several medications commonly used for a number of medical conditions share a property of functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase (ASM), or FIASMA. Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that the (ASM)/ceramide system may be central to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We examined the potential usefulness of FIASMA use among patients hospitalized for severe COVID‐19 in an observational multicenter study conducted at Greater Paris University hospitals. Of 2,846 adult patients hospitalized for severe COVID‐19, 277 (9.7%) were taking a FIASMA medication at the time of their hospital admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of intubation and/or death. We compared this endpoint between patients taking vs. not taking a FIASMA medication in time‐to‐event analyses adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and medical comorbidities. The primary analysis was a Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting (IPW). Over a mean follow‐up of 9.2 days (SD=12.5), the primary endpoint occurred in 104 patients (37.5%) receiving a FIASMA medication, and 1,060 patients (41.4%) who did not. Despite being significantly and substantially associated with older age and greater medical severity, FIASMA medication use was significantly associated with reduced likelihood of intubation or death in both crude (HR=0.71; 95%CI=0.58‐0.87; p<0.001) and primary IPW (HR=0.58; 95%CI=0.46‐0.72; p<0.001) analyses. This association remained significant in multiple sensitivity analyses and was not specific to one particular FIASMA class or medication. These results show the potential importance of the ASM/ceramide system in COVID‐19 and support the continuation of FIASMA medications in these patients. Double‐blind controlled randomized clinical trials of these medications for COVID‐19 are needed.

No abstract

Objective: Preliminary data from different cohorts of small sample size or with short follow-up indicate poorer prognosis in people with obesity compared with other patients. This study aims to precisely describe the strength of association between obesity in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mortality and to clarify the risk according to usual cardiometabolic risk factors in a large cohort. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study including 5,795 patients aged 18 to 79 years hospitalized from February 1 to April 30, 2020, in the Paris area, with confirmed infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Adjusted regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for the mortality rate at 30 days across BMI classes, without and with imputation for missing BMI values. Results: Eight hundred ninety-one deaths had occurred at 30 days. Mortality was significantly raised in people with obesity, with the following ORs for BMI of 30 to 35 kg/m 2 , 35 to 40 kg/m 2 , and >40 kg/m 2 : 1.89 (95% CI: 1.45-2.47), 2.79 (95% CI: 1.95-3.97), and 2.55 (95% CI: 1.62-3.95), respectively (18.5-25 kg/m 2 was used as the reference class). This increase holds for all age classes. Conclusions: Obesity doubles mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 . To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across 5 countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on comorbidities and temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

Purpose The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19. Methods We used “COVID-19 Evidence Alerts” (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer. Results We included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome. Conclusion Seven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06524-w.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Emergency departments (ED) are environments that are at high risk for medical errors. Previous studies suggested that the proportion of medical errors may decrease when more than 1 physician is involved.OBJECTIVE To reduce the proportion of medical errors by implementing systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cluster randomized crossover trial includes a random sample of 14 adult patients (age Ն18 years) per day during two 10-day period in 6 EDs (n = 1680 patients) in France.INTERVENTIONS Systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians, 3 times a day, which included a brief presentation of one physician's case to another, followed by the second physician's feedback to the first. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESMedical error in the ED, defined as an adverse event (either a near miss or a serious adverse event). The primary end point was identified using a 2-level error detection surveillance system, blinded to the strategy allocation. RESULTS Among the 1680 included patients (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [21.7] years), 144 (8.6%) had an adverse event. There were 54 adverse events among 840 patients (6.4%) in the cross-check group compared with 90 adverse events among 840 patients (10.7%) in the standard care group (relative risk reduction [RRR], 40% [95% CI, 12% to 59%]; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 4.3%; number needed to treat [NNT], 24). There was also a significant reduction rate of near misses (RRR, 47% [95% CI, 15% to 67%]; ARR, 2.7%; NNT, 37) but not of the rate of preventable serious adverse events (RRR, 29% [95% CI, −18% to 57%]; ARR, 1.2%; NNT, 83). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe implementation of systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians was associated with a significant reduction in adverse events, mainly driven by a reduction in near misses.