PURPOSE: Variation in risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19 has been reported from relatively small cohorts. The NCATS’ National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) is a centralized data resource representing the largest multicenter cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls nationwide. We aimed to construct and characterize the cancer cohort within N3C and identify risk factors for all-cause mortality from COVID-19.METHODS: We used 4,382,085 patients from 50 US medical centers to construct a cohort of patients with cancer. We restricted analyses to adults ≥ 18 years old with a COVID-19–positive or COVID-19–negative diagnosis between January 1, 2020, and March 25, 2021. We followed N3C selection of an index encounter per patient for analyses. All analyses were performed in the N3C Data Enclave Palantir platform.RESULTS: A total of 398,579 adult patients with cancer were identified from the N3C cohort; 63,413 (15.9%) were COVID-19–positive. Most common represented cancers were skin (13.8%), breast (13.7%), prostate (10.6%), hematologic (10.5%), and GI cancers (10%). COVID-19 positivity was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.24). Among COVID-19–positive patients, age ≥ 65 years, male gender, Southern or Western US residence, an adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 4, hematologic malignancy, multitumor sites, and recent cytotoxic therapy were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. Patients who received recent immunotherapies or targeted therapies did not have higher risk of overall mortality.CONCLUSION: Using N3C, we assembled the largest nationally representative cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 to date. We identified demographic and clinical factors associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients with cancer. Full characterization of the cohort will provide further insights into the effects of COVID-19 on cancer outcomes and the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.

Background Stratification of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, or long COVID) would allow precision clinical management strategies. However, long COVID is incompletely understood and characterised by a wide range of manifestations that are difficult to analyse computationally. Additionally, the generalisability of machine learning classification of COVID-19 clinical outcomes has rarely been tested. Methods We present a method for computationally modelling PASC phenotype data based on electronic healthcare records (EHRs) and for assessing pairwise phenotypic similarity between patients using semantic similarity. Our approach defines a nonlinear similarity function that maps from a feature space of phenotypic abnormalities to a matrix of pairwise patient similarity that can be clustered using unsupervised machine learning. Findings We found six clusters of PASC patients, each with distinct profiles of phenotypic abnormalities, including clusters with distinct pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, and cardiovascular abnormalities, and a cluster associated with broad, severe manifestations and increased mortality. There was significant association of cluster membership with a range of pre-existing conditions and measures of severity during acute COVID-19. We assigned new patients from other healthcare centres to clusters by maximum semantic similarity to the original patients, and showed that the clusters were generalisable across different hospital systems. The increased mortality rate originally identified in one cluster was consistently observed in patients assigned to that cluster in other hospital systems. Interpretation Semantic phenotypic clustering provides a foundation for assigning patients to stratified subgroups for natural history or therapy studies on PASC. Funding NIH (TR002306/OT2HL161847-01/OD011883/HG010860), U.S.D.O.E. (DE-AC02-05CH11231), Donald A. Roux Family Fund at Jackson Laboratory, Marsico Family at CU Anschutz.

PURPOSE: To provide real-world evidence on risks and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in vaccinated patients with cancer using the largest national cohort of COVID-19 cases and controls.METHODS: We used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) to identify breakthrough infections between December 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021. We included patients partially or fully vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection record. Risks for breakthrough infection and severe outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression.RESULTS: A total of 6,860 breakthrough cases were identified within the N3C-vaccinated population, among whom 1,460 (21.3%) were patients with cancer. Solid tumors and hematologic malignancies had significantly higher risks for breakthrough infection (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.12, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23 and 4.64, 95% CI, 3.98 to 5.38) and severe outcomes (ORs = 1.33, 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.62 and 1.45, 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.95) compared with noncancer patients, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, vaccine type, and vaccination date. Compared with solid tumors, hematologic malignancies were at increased risk for breakthrough infections (adjusted OR ranged from 2.07 for lymphoma to 7.25 for lymphoid leukemia). Breakthrough risk was reduced after the second vaccine dose for all cancers (OR = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.05), and for Moderna's mRNA-1273 compared with Pfizer's BNT162b2 vaccine (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.70), particularly in patients with multiple myeloma (OR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72). Medications with major immunosuppressive effects and bone marrow transplantation were strongly associated with breakthrough risk among the vaccinated population.CONCLUSION: Real-world evidence shows that patients with cancer, especially hematologic malignancies, are at higher risk for developing breakthrough infections and severe outcomes. Patients with vaccination were at markedly decreased risk for breakthrough infections. Further work is needed to assess boosters and new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

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 compareFormal 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.

Background: Due to the widespread and unprecedented popularity of mobile phones, the use of digital medicine and mobile health apps has seen significant growth. Mobile health apps have tremendous potential for monitoring and treating diseases, improving patient care, and promoting health. Objective: This paper aims to explore research trends, coauthorship networks, and the research hot spots of mobile health app research. Methods: Publications related to mobile health apps were retrieved and extracted from the Web of Science database with no language restrictions. Bibliographic Item Co-Occurrence Matrix Builder was employed to extract bibliographic information (publication year and journal source) and perform a descriptive analysis. We then used the VOSviewer (Leiden University) tool to construct and visualize the co-occurrence networks of researchers, research institutions, countries/regions, citations, and keywords. Results: We retrieved 2802 research papers on mobile health apps published from 2000 to 2019. The number of annual publications increased over the past 19 years. JMIR mHealth and uHealth (323/2802, 11.53%), Journal of Medical Internet Research (106/2802, 3.78%), and JMIR Research Protocols (82/2802, 2.93%) were the most common journals for these publications. The United States (1186/2802, 42.33%), England (235/2802, 8.39%), Australia (215/2802, 7.67%), and Canada (112/2802, 4.00%) were the most productive countries of origin. The University of California San Francisco, the University of Washington, and the University of Toronto were the most productive institutions. As for the authors’ contributions, Schnall R, Kuhn E, Lopez-Coronado M, and Kim J were the most active researchers. The co-occurrence cluster analysis of the top 100 keywords forms 5 clusters: (1) the technology and system development of mobile health apps; (2) mobile health apps for mental health; (3) mobile health apps in telemedicine, chronic disease, and medication adherence management; (4) mobile health apps in health behavior and health promotion; and (5) mobile health apps in disease prevention via the internet. Conclusions: We summarize the recent advances in mobile health app research and shed light on their research frontier, trends, and hot topics through bibliometric analysis and network visualization. These findings may provide valuable guidance on future research directions and perspectives in this rapidly developing field.

A multidisciplinary journal that focuses on public health and technology, public health informatics, mass media campaigns, surveillance, and innovation in public health practice and research. Also dedicated to rapid open data sharing during epidemics.