Background:There is a dearth of drug utilization studies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments in 2021 and beyond after the introduction of vaccines and updated guidelines; such studies are needed to contextualize ongoing COVID-19 treatment effectiveness studies during these time periods. This study describes utilization patterns for corticosteroids, interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, and remdesivir among hospitalized adults with COVID-19, over the entire hospitalization, and within hospitalization periods categorized by respiratory support requirements. Methods:This descriptive cohort study included United States adults hospitalized with COVID-19 admitted from 1 January 2021 through 1 February 2022; data included HealthVerity claims and hospital chargemaster. The number and distribution of patients were reported for the first 3 drug regimen lines initiated. Results:The cohort included 51 066 patients; the most common initial drug regimens were corticosteroids (23.4%), corticosteroids plus remdesivir (25.1%), and remdesivir (4.4%). IL-6 inhibitors and Janus kinase inhibitors were included in later drug regimens and were more commonly administered with both corticosteroids and remdesivir than with corticosteroids alone. IL-6 inhibitors were more commonly administered than Janus kinase inhibitors when patients received high-flow oxygen or ventilation. Conclusions:These findings provide important context for comparative studies of COVID-19 treatments with study periods extending into 2021 and later. While prescribing generally aligned with National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines during this period, these findings suggest that prescribing preference, potential confounding by indication, and confounding by prior/concomitant use of other therapeutics should be considered in the design and interpretation of comparative studies.

Generating evidence from real-world data requires fit-for-purpose study design and data. In addition to validity, decision makers require transparency in the reasoning that underlies study design and data source decisions. The 2019 Structured Preapproval and Postapproval Comparative Study Design Framework to Generate Valid and Transparent Real-World Evidence (SPACE) and the 2021 Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (SPIFD)-intended to be used together-provide a step-by-step guide to identify decision grade, fit-for-purpose study design and data. In this update (referred to as "SPIFD2" to encompass both the design and data aspects) we provide an update to these frameworks that combines the templates into one, more explicitly calls for articulation of the hypothetical target trial and sources of bias that may arise in the real-world emulation, and provides explicit references to the Structured Template and Reporting Tool for Real-World Evidence (STaRT-RWE) tables that we suggest using immediately after invoking the SPIFD2 framework. Following the steps recommended in the SPIFD2 process requires due diligence on the part of the researcher to ensure that every aspect of study design and data selection is rationalized and supported by evidence. The resulting stepwise documentation enables reproducibility and clear communication with decision makers, and it increases the likelihood that the evidence generated is valid, fit-for-purpose, and sufficient to support healthcare and regulatory decisions.

Purpose Algorithms for classification of inpatient COVID-19 severity are necessary for confounding control in studies using real-world data. Methods Using Healthverity chargemaster and claims data, we selected patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between April 2020 and February 2021, and classified them by severity at admission using an algorithm we developed based on respiratory support requirements (supplemental oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, O2/NIV, invasive mechanical ventilation, IMV, or NEITHER). To evaluate the utility of the algorithm, patients were followed from admission until death, discharge, or a 28-day maximum to report mortality risks and rates overall and by stratified by severity. Trends for heterogeneity in mortality risk and rate across severity classifications were evaluated using Cochran-Armitage and Logrank trend tests, respectively. Results Among 118 117 patients, the algorithm categorized patients in increasing severity as NEITHER (36.7%), O2/NIV (54.3%), and IMV (9.0%). Associated mortality risk (and 95% CI) was 11.8% (11.6-12.0%) overall and increased with severity [3.4% (3.2-3.5%), 11.5% (11.3-11.8%), 47.3% (46.3-48.2%); p < 0.001]. Mortality rate per 1000 person-days (and 95% CI) was 15.1 (14.9-15.4) overall and increased with severity [5.7 (5.4-6.0), 14.5 (14.2-14.9), 32.7 (31.8-33.6); p < 0.001]. Conclusion As expected, we observed a positive association between the algorithm-defined severity on admission and 28-day mortality risk and rate. Although performance remains to be validated, this provides some assurance that this algorithm may be used for confounding control or stratification in treatment effect studies.

Objective To describe differences by race and ethnicity in treatment patterns among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US from March-August 2020. Methods Among patients in de-identified Optum electronic health record data hospitalized with COVID-19 (March-August 2020), we estimated odds ratios of receiving COVID-19 treatments of interest (azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and other steroids) at hospital admission, by race and ethnicity, after adjusting for key covariates of interest. Results After adjusting for key covariates, Black/African American patients were less likely to receive dexamethasone (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.71, 0.96]) and more likely to receive other steroids corticosteroids (adj. OR [95% CI]: 2.13 [1.90, 2.39]), relative to White patients. Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to receive dexamethasone than Not Hispanic/Latino patients (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.58, 0.82]). Conclusions Our findings suggest that COVID-19 treatments patients received in Optum varied by race and ethnicity after adjustment for other possible explanatory factors. In the face of rapidly evolving treatment landscapes, policies are needed to ensure equitable access to novel and repurposed therapeutics to avoid disparities in care by race and ethnicity.

Decision-makers have become increasingly interested in incorporating real-world evidence (RWE) into their decision-making process. Due to concerns regarding the reliability and quality of RWE, stakeholders have issued numerous recommendation documents to assist in setting RWE standards. The fragmented nature of these documents poses a challenge to researchers and decision-makers looking for guidance on what is 'high-quality' RWE and how it can be used in decision-making. We offer researchers and decision-makers a structure to organize the landscape of RWE recommendations and identify consensus and gaps in the current recommendations. To provide researchers with a much needed pathway for generating RWE, we discuss how decision-makers can move from fragmented recommendations to comprehensive guidance.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTImportanceAlgorithms for classification of inpatient COVID-19 severity are necessary for confounding control in studies using real-world data (RWD).ObjectiveTo explore use of electronic health record (EHR) data to inform an administrative data algorithm for classification of supplemental oxygen or noninvasive ventilation (O2/NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) to assess disease severity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.DesignIn this retrospective cohort study, we developed an initial procedure-based algorithm to identify O2/NIV, IMV, and NEITHER O2/NIV nor IMV in two inpatient RWD sources. We then expanded the algorithm to explore the impact of adding diagnoses indicative of clinical need for O2/NIV (hypoxia, hypoxemia) or IMV (acute respiratory distress syndrome) and O2-related patient vitals available in the EHR. Observed changes in severity categorization were used to augment the administrative algorithm.SettingOptum de-identified COVID-19 EHR data and HealthVerity claims and chargemaster data (March – August 2020).ParticipantsAmong patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in each RWD source, our motivating example selected dexamethasone (DEX+) initiators and a random selection of patients who were non-initiators of a corticosteroid of interest (CSI-) matched on date of DEX initiation, age, sex, baseline comorbidity score, days since admission, and COVID-19 severity level (NEITHER, O2/NIV, IMV) on treatment index.Main Outcome and MeasuresInpatient COVID-19 severity was defined using the algorithms developed to classify respiratory support requirements among hospitalized COVID-19 patients (NEITHER, O2/NIV, IMV). Measures were reported as the treatment-specific distributions of patients in each severity level, and as observed changes in severity categorization between the initial procedure-based and expanded algorithms.ResultsIn the administrative data cohort with 5,524 DEX+ and CSI- patient pairs matched using the initial procedure-based algorithm, 30% were categorized as O2/NIV, 5% as IMV, and 65% as NEITHER. Among patients assigned NEITHER via the initial algorithm, use of an expanded algorithm informed by the EHR-based algorithm shifted 54% DEX+ and 28% CSI- to O2/NIV, and 2% DEX+ and 1% CSI- to IMV. Among patients initially assigned O2/NIV, 7% DEX+ and 3% CSI- shifted to IMV.Conclusions and RelevanceApplication of learnings from an EHR-based exploration to our administrative algorithm minimized treatment-differential misclassification of COVID-19 severity.