The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has clearly shown that major challenges and threats for humankind need to be addressed with global answers and shared decisions. Data and their analytics are crucial components of such decision-making activities. Rather interestingly, one of the most difficult aspects is reusing and sharing of accurate and detailed clinical data collected by Electronic Health Records (EHR), even if these data have a paramount importance. EHR data, in fact, are not only essential for supporting day-by-day activities, but also they can leverage research and support critical decisions about effectiveness of drugs and therapeutic strategies. In this paper, we will concentrate our attention on collaborative data infrastructures to support COVID-19 research and on the open issues of data sharing and data governance that COVID-19 had made emerge. Data interoperability, healthcare processes modelling and representation, shared procedures to deal with different data privacy regulations, and data stewardship and governance are seen as the most important aspects to boost collaborative research. Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic can be a strong element to improve international research and our future capability of dealing with fast developing emergencies and needs, which are likely to be more frequent in the future in our connected and intertwined world.

Objective: The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity. Materials and Methods: Twelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site. Results: The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability—up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review. Discussion: We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions. Conclusions: We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

Lombardy was the first area in Italy to have an outbreak of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) at the beginning of 2020. In this context, cancer has been reported as a major risk factor for adverse outcomes and death, so oncology societies have quickly released guidelines on cancer care during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the management of cancer patients and oncological treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic and to describe the containment measures performed in our outpatient clinic at Pavia (Lombardy). A comparison with the same period of the four previous years (2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016) was also performed. Using our electronic databases, we evaluated the number and characteristics of patients accessing the hospital for anticancer drug infusion from 24 February, 2020 to 30 April, 2020 and the number of radiological exams performed. Although a significant reduction in access for therapy was seen when compared with 2019 (2590 versus 2974, access rate ratio (ARR) = 0.85, p < 0.001), no significant differences in access numbers and ARR was evident between 2020 and 2018, 2017, or 2016 (2590 versus 2626 (ARR = 0.07), 2660 (ARR = 0.99), and 2694 (ARR = 0.96), respectively, p > 0.05). In 2020, 63 patients delayed treatment: 38% for “pandemic fear”, 18% for travel restrictions, 13% for quarantine, 18% for flu syndrome other than COVID-19, and 13% for worsening of clinical conditions and death. Only 7/469 patients developed COVID-19. A significant reduction in radiological exams was found in 2020 versus all the other years considered (211 versus 360, 355, 385, 390 for the years 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively, p < 0.001). The low incidence of COVID-19 among our cancer patients, along with the hospital policy to control infection, enabled safe cancer treatment and a continuum of care in most patients, while a small fraction of patients experienced a therapeutic delay due to patient-related reasons.

Background: Many countries have experienced 2 predominant waves of COVID-19–related hospitalizations. Comparing the clinical trajectories of patients hospitalized in separate waves of the pandemic enables further understanding of the evolving epidemiology, pathophysiology, and health care dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections hospitalized in participating health care systems representing 315 hospitals across 6 countries. We compared hospitalization rates, severe COVID-19 risk, and mean laboratory values between patients hospitalized during the first and second waves of the pandemic. Methods: Using a federated approach, each participating health care system extracted patient-level clinical data on their first and second wave cohorts and submitted aggregated data to the central site. Data quality control steps were adopted at the central site to correct for implausible values and harmonize units. Statistical analyses were performed by computing individual health care system effect sizes and synthesizing these using random effect meta-analyses to account for heterogeneity. We focused the laboratory analysis on C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, fibrinogen, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and creatinine based on their reported associations with severe COVID-19. Results: Data were available for 79,613 patients, of which 32,467 were hospitalized in the first wave and 47,146 in the second wave. The prevalence of male patients and patients aged 50 to 69 years decreased significantly between the first and second waves. Patients hospitalized in the second wave had a 9.9% reduction in the risk of severe COVID-19 compared to patients hospitalized in the first wave (95% CI 8.5%-11.3%). Demographic subgroup analyses indicated that patients aged 26 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years; male and female patients; and black patients had significantly lower risk for severe disease in the second wave than in the first wave. At admission, the mean values of CRP were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. On the seventh hospital day, the mean values of CRP, ferritin, fibrinogen, and procalcitonin were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. In general, countries exhibited variable changes in laboratory testing rates from the first to the second wave. At admission, there was a significantly higher testing rate for D-dimer in France, Germany, and Spain. Conclusions: Patients hospitalized in the second wave were at significantly lower risk for severe COVID-19. This corresponded to mean laboratory values in the second wave that were more likely to be in typical physiological ranges on the seventh hospital day compared to the first wave. Our federated approach demonstrated the feasibility and power of harmonizing heterogeneous EHR data from multiple international health care systems to rapidly conduct large-scale studies to characterize how COVID-19 clinical trajectories evolve.

The global healthcare landscape is continuously changing throughout the world as technology advances, leading to a gradual change in lifestyle. Several diseases such as asthma and cardiovascular conditions are becoming more diffuse, due to a rise in pollution exposure and a more sedentary lifestyle. Healthcare providers deal with increasing new challenges, and thanks to fast-developing big data technologies, they can be faced with systems that provide direct support to citizens. In this context, within the EU-funded Participatory Urban Living for Sustainable Environments (PULSE) project, we are implementing a data analytic platform designed to provide public health decision makers with advanced approaches, to jointly analyze maps and geospatial information with healthcare and air pollution data. In this paper we describe a component of such platforms, which couples deep learning analysis of urban geospatial images with healthcare indexes collected by the 500 Cities project. By applying a pre-learned deep Neural Network architecture, satellite images of New York City are analyzed and latent feature variables are extracted. These features are used to derive clusters, which are correlated with healthcare indicators by means of a multivariate classification model. Thanks to this pipeline, it is possible to show that, in New York City, health care indexes are significantly correlated to the urban landscape. This pipeline can serve as a basis to ease urban planning, since the same interventions can be organized on similar areas, even if geographically distant.

Objectives: To perform an international comparison of the trajectory of laboratory values among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who develop severe disease and identify optimal timing of laboratory value collection to predict severity across hospitals and regions. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE), an international multi-site data-sharing collaborative of 342 hospitals in the US and in Europe. Participants: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19, admitted before or after PCR-confirmed result for SARS-CoV-2. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Patients were categorized as “ever-severe” or “never-severe” using the validated 4CE severity criteria. Eighteen laboratory tests associated with poor COVID-19-related outcomes were evaluated for predictive accuracy by area under the curve (AUC), compared between the severity categories. Subgroup analysis was performed to validate a subset of laboratory values as predictive of severity against a published algorithm. A subset of laboratory values (CRP, albumin, LDH, neutrophil count, D-dimer, and procalcitonin) was compared between North American and European sites for severity prediction. Results: Of 36,447 patients with COVID-19, 19,953 (43.7%) were categorized as ever-severe. Most patients (78.7%) were 50 years of age or older and male (60.5%). Longitudinal trajectories of CRP, albumin, LDH, neutrophil count, D-dimer, and procalcitonin showed association with disease severity. Significant differences of laboratory values at admission were found between the two groups. With the exception of D-dimer, predictive discrimination of laboratory values did not improve after admission. Sub-group analysis using age, D-dimer, CRP, and lymphocyte count as predictive of severity at admission showed similar discrimination to a published algorithm (AUC=0.88 and 0.91, respectively). Both models deteriorated in predictive accuracy as the disease progressed. On average, no difference in severity prediction was found between North American and European sites. Conclusions: Laboratory test values at admission can be used to predict severity in patients with COVID-19. Prediction models show consistency across international sites highlighting the potential generalizability of these models.