BACKGROUND: This study investigated the outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-positive patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a national database. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing hip fracture surgery outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative matched cohorts from 46 sites in the United States. Patients aged 65 and older with hip fracture surgery between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included. The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In this national study that included 3303 adults with hip fracture surgery, the 30-day mortality was 14.6% with COVID-19-positive versus 3.8% in COVID-19-negative, a notable difference. The all-cause mortality for hip fracture surgery was 27.0% in the COVID-19-positive group during the study period. DICUSSION: We found higher incidence of all-cause mortality in patients with versus without diagnosis of COVID-19 after undergoing hip fracture surgery. The mortality in hip fracture surgery in this national analysis was lower than other local and regional reports. The medical community can use this information to guide the management of hip fracture patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Numerous publications describe the clinical manifestations of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC or "long COVID"), but they are difficult to integrate because of heterogeneous methods and the lack of a standard for denoting the many phenotypic manifestations. Patient-led studies are of particular importance for understanding the natural history of COVID-19, but integration is hampered because they often use different terms to describe the same symptom or condition. This significant disparity in patient versus clinical characterization motivated the proposed ontological approach to specifying manifestations, which will improve capture and integration of future long COVID studies. METHODS: The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) is a widely used standard for exchange and analysis of phenotypic abnormalities in human disease but has not yet been applied to the analysis of COVID-19. FUNDING: We identified 303 articles published before April 29, 2021, curated 59 relevant manuscripts that described clinical manifestations in 81 cohorts three weeks or more following acute COVID-19, and mapped 287 unique clinical findings to HPO terms. We present layperson synonyms and definitions that can be used to link patient self-report questionnaires to standard medical terminology. Long COVID clinical manifestations are not assessed consistently across studies, and most manifestations have been reported with a wide range of synonyms by different authors. Across at least 10 cohorts, authors reported 31 unique clinical features corresponding to HPO terms; the most commonly reported feature was Fatigue (median 45.1%) and the least commonly reported was Nausea (median 3.9%), but the reported percentages varied widely between studies. INTERPRETATION: Translating long COVID manifestations into computable HPO terms will improve analysis, data capture, and classification of long COVID patients. If researchers, clinicians, and patients share a common language, then studies can be compared/pooled more effectively. Furthermore, mapping lay terminology to HPO will help patients assist clinicians and researchers in creating phenotypic characterizations that are computationally accessible, thereby improving the stratification, diagnosis, and treatment of long COVID. FUNDING: U24TR002306; UL1TR001439; P30AG024832; GBMF4552; R01HG010067; UL1TR002535; K23HL128909; UL1TR002389; K99GM145411.

Background Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), otherwise known as long-COVID, have severely impacted recovery from the pandemic for patients and society alike. This new disease is characterized by evolving, heterogeneous symptoms, making it challenging to derive an unambiguous long-COVID definition. Electronic health record (EHR) studies are a critical element of the NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, which is addressing the urgent need to understand PASC, accurately identify who has PASC, and identify treatments. Methods Using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative’s (N3C) EHR repository, we developed XGBoost machine learning (ML) models to identify potential long-COVID patients. We examined demographics, healthcare utilization, diagnoses, and medications for 97,995 adult COVID-19 patients. We used these features and 597 long-COVID clinic patients to train three ML models to identify potential long-COVID patients among (1) all COVID-19 patients, (2) patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and (3) patients who had COVID-19 but were not hospitalized. Findings Our models identified potential long-COVID patients with high accuracy, achieving areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.91 (all patients), 0.90 (hospitalized); and 0.85 (non-hospitalized). Important features include rate of healthcare utilization, patient age, dyspnea, and other diagnosis and medication information available within the EHR. Applying the “all patients” model to the larger N3C cohort identified 100,263 potential long-COVID patients. Interpretation Patients flagged by our models can be interpreted as “patients likely to be referred to or seek care at a long-COVID specialty clinic,” an essential proxy for long-COVID diagnosis in the current absence of a definition. We also achieve the urgent goal of identifying potential long-COVID patients for clinical trials. As more data sources are identified, the models can be retrained and tuned based on study needs. Funding This study was funded by NCATS and NIH through the RECOVER Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the respective associations of premorbid glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use, compared with premorbid dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use, with severity of outcomes in the setting of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed observational data from SARS-CoV-2-positive adults in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a multicenter, longitudinal U.S. cohort (January 2018-February 2021), with a prescription for GLP1-RA, SGLT2i, or DPP4i within 24 months of positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality, measured from positive SARS-CoV-2 test date. Secondary outcomes were total mortality during the observation period and emergency room visits, hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation within 14 days. Associations were quantified with odds ratios (ORs) estimated with targeted maximum likelihood estimation using a super learner approach, accounting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 12,446 individuals (53.4% female, 62.5% White, mean +/- SD age 58.6 +/- 13.1 years). The 60-day mortality was 3.11% (387 of 12,446), with 2.06% (138 of 6,692) for GLP1-RA use, 2.32% (85 of 3,665) for SGLT2i use, and 5.67% (199 of 3,511) for DPP4i use. Both GLP1-RA and SGLT2i use were associated with lower 60-day mortality compared with DPP4i use (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.37-0.80] and 0.66 [0.50-0.86], respectively). Use of both medications was also associated with decreased total mortality, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among SARS-CoV-2-positive adults, premorbid GLP1-RA and SGLT2i use, compared with DPP4i use, was associated with lower odds of mortality and other adverse outcomes, although DPP4i users were older and generally sicker.

Since late 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has introduced a wide array of health challenges globally. In addition to a complex acute presentation that can affect multiple organ systems, increasing evidence points to long-term sequelae being common and impactful. The worldwide scientific community is forging ahead to characterize a wide range of outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection; however the underlying assumptions in these studies have varied so widely that the resulting data are difficult to compare. Formal definitions are needed in order to design robust and consistent studies of Long COVID that consistently capture variation in long-term outcomes. Even the condition itself goes by three terms, most widely "Long COVID", but also "COVID-19 syndrome (PACS)" or, "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC)". In the present study, we investigate the definitions used in the literature published to date and compare them against data available from electronic health records and patient-reported information collected via surveys. Long COVID holds the potential to produce a second public health crisis on the heels of the pandemic itself. Proactive efforts to identify the characteristics of this heterogeneous condition are imperative for a rigorous scientific effort to investigate and mitigate this threat.

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to allow humans and algorithms to identify the exact resources that are reported or answer basic questions such as "What other studies used resource X?" To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (including software and databases). RRIDs represent accession numbers assigned by an authoritative database, e.g., the model organism databases, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal ( www.scicrunch.org/resources). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are generally accurate in performing the task of identifying resources and supportive of the goals of the project. We also show that identifiability of the resources pre- and post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on reproducibility relating to research resources.