Background: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces a prothrombotic state, but long-term effects of COVID-19 on incidence of vascular diseases are unclear. Methods: We studied vascular diseases after COVID-19 diagnosis in population-wide anonymized linked English and Welsh electronic health records from January 1 to December 7, 2020. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios comparing the incidence of arterial thromboses and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) after diagnosis of COVID-19 with the incidence in people without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses by COVID-19 severity, demographic characteristics, and previous history. Results: Among 48 million adults, 125 985 were hospitalized and 1 319 789 were not hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. In England, there were 260 279 first arterial thromboses and 59 421 first VTEs during 41.6 million person-years of follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios for first arterial thrombosis after COVID-19 diagnosis compared with no COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 21.7 (95% CI, 21.0–22.4) in week 1 after COVID-19 diagnosis to 1.34 (95% CI, 1.21–1.48) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios for first VTE after COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 33.2 (95% CI, 31.3–35.2) in week 1 to 1.80 (95% CI, 1.50–2.17) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios were higher, for longer after diagnosis, after hospitalized versus nonhospitalized COVID-19, among Black or Asian versus White people, and among people without versus with a previous event. The estimated whole-population increases in risk of arterial thromboses and VTEs 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.5% and 0.25%, respectively, corresponding to 7200 and 3500 additional events, respectively, after 1.4 million COVID-19 diagnoses. Conclusions: High relative incidence of vascular events soon after COVID-19 diagnosis declines more rapidly for arterial thromboses than VTEs. However, incidence remains elevated up to 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis. These results support policies to prevent severe COVID-19 by means of COVID-19 vaccines, early review after discharge, risk factor control, and use of secondary preventive agents in high-risk patients.

Identification of unintended drug effects, specifically drug repurposing opportunities and adverse drug events, maximizes the benefit of a drug and protects the health of patients. However, current observational research methods are subject to several biases. These include confounding by indication, reverse causality and missing data. We propose that Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a novel approach for the prediction of unintended drug effects. In particular, we advocate the synthesis of evidence from this method and other approaches, in the spirit of triangulation, to improve causal inferences concerning drug effects. MR addresses some of the limitations associated with the existing methods in this field. Furthermore, it can be applied either before or after approval of the drug, and could therefore prevent the potentially harmful exposure of patients in clinical trials and beyond. The potential of MR as a pharmacovigilance and drug repurposing tool is yet to be realized, and could both help prevent adverse drug events and identify novel indications for existing drugs in the future.

Drugs whose targets have genetic evidence to support efficacy and safety are more likely to be approved after clinical development. In this paper, we provide an overview of how natural sequence variation in the genes that encode drug targets can be used in Mendelian randomization analyses to offer insight into mechanism-based efficacy and adverse effects. Large databases of summary level genetic association data are increasingly available and can be leveraged to identify and validate variants that serve as proxies for drug target perturbation. As with all empirical research, Mendelian randomization has limitations including genetic confounding, its consideration of lifelong effects, and issues related to heterogeneity across different tissues and populations. When appropriately applied, Mendelian randomization provides a useful empirical framework for using population level data to improve the success rates of the drug development pipeline.

Drugs whose targets have genetic evidence to support efficacy and safety are more likely to be approved after clinical development. In this paper, we provide an overview of how natural sequence variation in the genes that encode drug targets can be used in Mendelian randomization analyses to offer insight into mechanism-based efficacy and adverse effects. Large databases of summary level genetic association data are increasingly available and can be leveraged to identify and validate variants that serve as proxies for drug target perturbation. As with all empirical research, Mendelian randomization has limitations including genetic confounding, its consideration of lifelong effects, and issues related to heterogeneity across different tissues and populations. When appropriately applied, Mendelian randomization provides a useful empirical framework for using population level data to improve the success rates of the drug development pipeline.

This study was to systematically test whether previously reported risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD) are causally related to CKD in European and East Asian ancestries using Mendelian randomization. A total of 45 risk factors with genetic data in European ancestry and 17 risk factors in East Asian participants were identified as exposures from PubMed. We defined the CKD by clinical diagnosis or by estimated glomerular filtration rate of 25 kg/m². Eight cardiometabolic risk factors showed causal effects on CKD in Europeans and three of them showed causality in East Asians, providing insights into the design of future interventions to reduce the burden of CKD.