Effect of Paxlovid Treatment on Long COVID Onset: An EHR-Based Target Trial Emulation from N3C
==============================================================================================

* Alexander Preiss
* Abhishek Bhatia
* Chengxi Zang
* Leyna V. Aragon
* John M. Baratta
* Monika Baskaran
* Frank Blancero
* M. Daniel Brannock
* Robert F. Chew
* Iván Díaz
* Megan Fitzgerald
* Elizabeth P. Kelly
* Andrea Zhou
* Mark G. Weiner
* Thomas W. Carton
* Fei Wang
* Rainu Kaushal
* Christopher G. Chute
* Melissa Haendel
* Richard Moffitt
* Emily Pfaff
* N3C Consortium and the RECOVER EHR Cohort

## ABSTRACT

Preventing and treating post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), commonly known as Long COVID, has become a public health priority. In this study, we examined whether treatment with Paxlovid in the acute phase of COVID-19 helps prevent the onset of PASC. We used electronic health records from the National Covid Cohort Collaborative (N3C) to define a cohort of 426,461 patients who had COVID-19 since April 1, 2022, and were eligible for Paxlovid treatment due to risk for progression to severe COVID-19. We used the target trial emulation (TTE) framework to estimate the effect of Paxlovid treatment on PASC incidence. Our primary outcome measure was a PASC computable phenotype. Secondary outcomes were the onset of novel cognitive, fatigue, and respiratory symptoms in the post-acute period. Paxlovid treatment did not have a significant effect on overall PASC incidence (relative risk [RR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.01). However, its effect varied across the cognitive (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.90), fatigue (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.96), and respiratory (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02) symptom clusters, suggesting that Paxlovid treatment may help prevent post-acute cognitive and fatigue symptoms more than others.

## INTRODUCTION

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), commonly known as Long COVID, has become a public health priority. PASC affects people from all walks of life, and it is difficult to predict whether an individual will get PASC at the time of acute infection. Many people with PASC continue to feel the impacts of the disease years after infection. Mechanisms causing PASC remain largely unknown, and we have yet to identify a treatment that is consistently effective across the array of PASC manifestations. Therefore, developing effective PASC prevention strategies will be crucial to alleviating the long-term public health impact of COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research on this topic, including identifying novel interventions and assessing whether and how known interventions could help prevent PASC.

Nirmatrelvir with ritonavir (Paxlovid) was given an emergency use authorization (EUA) in the United States in December 2021 for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Paxlovid has proven effective at preventing severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, with supporting evidence from clinical trials and real-world evidence, although a recent study found that Paxlovid was less effective at preventing hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants.1–7

In 2022, several teams published case reports where Paxlovid was used to treat PASC. Across three early reports, treatment was effective in five of six treated patients.8–10 A larger 2023 report found mixed effects in 13 patients, suggesting that Paxlovid treatment “may have meaningful benefits for some people with Long COVID but not others”.11 In sum, this evidence motivated the RECOVER-VITAL trials to evaluate Paxlovid as a potential treatment for PASC.12

In addition to treating PASC, researchers have begun to explore whether Paxlovid treatment in the acute phase of COVID-19 infection could help prevent the onset of PASC. One plausible pathway could be reducing infection severity. Studies have found that more severe acute infection is associated with a higher risk of PASC.13,14 In N3C, we have found that COVID-19-associated hospitalization is associated with a much greater likelihood of a PASC diagnosis.15 A meta-analysis also found that hospitalized patients were more likely to have PASC.16

Few studies have explored Paxlovid as a PASC preventative, and results are mixed. The largest study to date (281,793 individuals) used data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).17 The VA study found that Paxlovid treatment during the acute phase of COVID-19 reduced the risk of a composite outcome of 13 post-acute sequelae, with a hazard ratio of 0.74.17 However, two smaller studies found that Paxlovid treatment was not associated with a reduced risk of PASC: a survey of 4,684 individuals from the Covid Citizen Science cohort and a survey of 500 individuals from Montefiore Medical Center.18,19 Although these studies are much smaller than the VA study, they are more representative of the general population, and survey methods may capture symptoms that EHR data do not. In sum, the relationship between Paxlovid treatment and PASC onset remains uncertain.

Through the National Institute of Health’s National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), and as part of the RECOVER Initiative’s EHR data team, we have the opportunity to study Paxlovid as a PASC preventative using a large, nationally sampled cohort.20 We use the target trial emulation (TTE) framework to explicitly measure the effect of Paxlovid treatment in the acute phase of COVID-19 infection on the cumulative incidence of PASC.21 We measure PASC incidence using a machine learning-based computable phenotype, which offers advantages over symptom-based outcomes22. As secondary outcomes, we also measure the novel onset of PASC symptoms in the cognitive, fatigue, and respiratory clusters proposed by the Global Burden of Disease program.23 We conduct two sub-analyses: the first using a “VA-like cohort” designed to mirror the study period and demographics used in Xie et al. (2023)17 and the second using data from the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) database.

## RESULTS

### Patient Characteristics

After inclusion and exclusion criteria and within the study period, a total of 426,461 patients had a valid COVID-19 index date during the study period, of whom 123,209 (28.89%) were treated with Paxlovid, and 24,474 (5.74%) had PASC according to our primary outcome measure (U09.9 diagnosis or computable phenotype prediction over 0.9 from 29 to 180 days after index). After applying the eligibility criteria to the patient population and study sites, a total of 28 of 36 study sites were retained. The CONSORT flow diagram is shown in Figure 1. The characteristics of all patients during the study period are presented in Table 1, stratified by treatment group.

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F1)

Figure 1: 
CONSORT Diagram: Study Cohort and Flow of Emulated Trial

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/T1)

Table 1: Descriptive population characteristics within the N3C Cohort

### Effect of Paxlovid Treatment on PASC Incidence

Table 2 shows inverse probability of treatment-weighted Aalen-Johansen estimates of cumulative incidence for all main analyses, and Figure 2 shows corresponding risk ratios. Additional figures are shown in Supplement A.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F2)

Figure 2: 
Estimated Treatment Effects of Paxlovid on PASC, across all analyses

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/T2)

Table 2: Estimated Cumulative Incidence of PASC among Paxlovid-treated patients compared to non-Paxlovid treated patients across all analyses

### Primary Outcome (PASC Computable Phenotype or U09.9 Diagnosis)

Adjusted cumulative incidence estimates were 6.92% (95% CI 6.74-7.09) for treated patients and 7.02% (95% CI 6.91-7.13) for untreated patients (See Figure 3). The adjusted relative risk of PASC was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.01).

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F3)

Figure 3: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with threshold of 0.9 or U09.9; between 29-180 days

### Secondary Outcomes (GBD Symptom Clusters)

Adjusted relative risk was 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.90) for the cognitive symptom cluster, 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.96) for the fatigue symptom cluster, and 0.99 (95% CI 0.95-1.02) for the respiratory symptom cluster.

### Subanalyses

In the “VA-like cohort” subanalysis, the cohort included 61,604 male patients 65 years or older with a COVID-19 index between January 3, 2022, and December 31, 2022 (the same study period used in Xie et al, 2023).17 Of this cohort, 15,846 (25.72%) were treated with Paxlovid. Adjusted relative risk for the primary outcome was 0.95 (95% CI 0.86-1.03). For the cognitive, fatigue, and respiratory GBD symptom clusters, adjusted relative risk was 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.85), 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-0.99), and 0.92 (95% CI 0.84-0.99), respectively. Figures are shown in Supplement B.

In the PCORnet subanalysis, the cohort included 490,487 patients, 35.67% of whom were treated with Paxlovid. The adjusted hazard ratio of Paxlovid treatment on the primary outcome (based on the novel onset of any of 25 symptoms) was 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.88). The adjusted hazard ratio of Paxlovid treatment on the GBD symptom clusters was 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89) for cognitive, 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.87) for fatigue, and 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.91) for respiratory symptoms. See Supplement C for details.

## DISCUSSION

In this target trial emulation using the N3C database, we found no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of PASC between individuals treated and untreated with Paxlovid during the acute phase of COVID-19.

We found that Paxlovid had a protective effect against the onset of novel cognitive and fatigue symptoms in the post-acute period, which suggests that Paxlovid may have more impact on the underlying causes of those symptoms. In the literature, multiple PASC etiologies have been proposed. The chief hypotheses are that, relative to healthy convalescents, those with PASC may be experiencing (1) an aberrant autoimmune response triggered by the virus, (2) organ, tissue, or vascular dysfunction related to inflammatory cascades following infection, and/or (3) persistent viremia due to increased viral load or viral reservoirs. We do not yet know which symptoms are caused by which mechanisms. Paxlovid treatment decreases viral load, and thus could plausibly have more impact on symptoms arising from the third factor.25 Our findings allow us to generate the hypothesis that cognitive symptoms (against which Paxlovid is most protective) may be caused by mechanisms that Paxlovid would affect (e.g., viral load).

### Subanalyses

The PCORnet subanalysis differed from our primary analysis in two ways: a different data repository and a broader primary definition of PASC. Whereas we found no significant treatment effect in the primary analysis, the PCORnet subanalysis found that Paxlovid treatment reduced PASC incidence by 13%. Given the broader definition, the unadjusted prevalence of PASC in the PCORnet cohort was also much higher (23.2% vs 5.7%). Unadjusted relative risk also differed across the cohorts. For the cognitive and fatigue GBD symptom clusters, relative risks were similar, while the PCORnet subanalysis found a stronger effect for the respiratory cluster. In sum, the PCORnet subanalysis affirms that the effect of Paxlovid on reducing risk of PASC may not be as high as previously reported, but also demonstrates how cohort differences and varied PASC definitions can affect conclusions.

The “VA-like” subanalysis, limited to a cohort of males at least 65 years old, found a much smaller treatment effect than Xie et al. (2023).17 Despite our efforts to align outcome measures, cohort characteristics, and methodology, significant differences remain between our subanalysis and the VA study. Chief among them are remaining differences in our cohort and a true VA cohort. Veterans are more likely than demographically similar non-veterans to have been exposed to traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, biohazards, and other risk factors.26–30 Through consistent access to the VA, the EHR for veterans may also be more complete.31 Veterans may also differ from demographically similar non-veterans in their access to care. These factors may account for the large difference in PASC incidence and unadjusted and adjusted relative risk between our subanalysis and Xie et al. (2023).17

### Implications of Findings

Although our study did not find that Paxlovid has a practically or statistically significant effect in preventing PASC, it should not obscure the body of evidence that it is effective in preventing hospitalization and death due to acute COVID-19.3,4,32,33 Ultimately, effective treatment and prevention of PASC remains elusive. The RECOVER-VITAL trial will provide strong evidence on whether Paxlovid is safe and effective in treating PASC.34 However, in addition to studying its potential role as a PASC treatment, there is also a need for trials to explore Paxlovid’s potential as a preventative measure for PASC. The target trial emulation framework employed here allows us to draw initial conclusions while we lack results from a randomized controlled trial. Notably, our results contrast with recent media coverage of Paxlovid’s effect on PASC, with NBC News reporting in October 2023 that “A consensus has emerged among experts who study and treat long Covid: Paxlovid seems to reduce the risk of lingering symptoms among those eligible to take it.”35 Our findings bring this interpretation into question.

### Strengths and Limitations

This study has several strengths that underscore the value of large-scale EHR repositories. We used a large, nationally sampled cohort from 28 sites across the United States, increasing generalizability and decreasing the potential for misclassification present in administrative or claims data.36 The volume of data in the N3C database allowed for the aggressive inclusion/exclusion criteria necessary for TTE while preserving statistical power.37,38 Our use of the TTE framework allowed us to account for confounding and estimate the causal effect of Paxlovid treatment using observational data.39–42

Our use of a PASC computable phenotype is also a strength. Although several institutions have proposed definitions of PASC, they disagree on the symptoms and timing that constitute the condition.43–46 Varying definitions of PASC can lead to widely varying incidence estimates. Furthermore, measuring PASC as the novel onset of a specific set of symptoms can lead to false positives (symptoms with etiologies other than COVID-19) and false negatives (related symptoms not included in the definition). A machine learning-based computable phenotype may learn to avoid these errors. Furthermore, it does not require the selection of a principled set of symptoms, instead learning from all symptoms associated with PASC diagnoses.

Our study period makes our findings more relevant. Prior studies of this topic have included cases from the initial Omicron wave, when Paxlovid was less available and disease dynamics were markedly different. Finally, our subanalyses shed further light on potential demographic and cohort effects.

This study also has limitations. Because EHR data do not include information on adherence, we can only measure whether a patient was prescribed Paxlovid. However, this is adequate for estimating the intention-to-treat effect. Also, our inclusion criteria of Paxlovid treatment within five days of COVID-19 index differs from the indication of treatment within five days of symptom onset. However, we note that within our cohort, 96% of treated patients were treated within one day of COVID-19 index.

Several variables in this study are subject to measurement error. Many COVID-19 infections during this period were not documented due to the prevalence of home testing. Paxlovid prescriptions from providers outside N3C data partner systems may not be documented. The PASC computable phenotype may also misclassify patients.47 For this reason, the confidence intervals around computable phenotype-based incidence estimates are likely too narrow.

Finally, this study is subject to limitations common to EHR-based studies and causal inference studies. EHRs are susceptible to missing data, and our estimates may be biased if missingness was related to unobserved confounding.48–50 This study is also subject to the assumptions of all causal inference studies, in particular, that there is no unmeasured confounding.

### Conclusion

There is overwhelming evidence that Paxlovid is effective in preventing hospitalization and death due to acute COVID-19, and as such is a critical treatment option to improve COVID-19 outcomes. We used a target trial emulation framework to determine whether Paxlovid might also be effective in preventing PASC. Among patients with COVID-19 in our study period who were eligible for Paxlovid treatment, the cumulative incidence of PASC within a 180-day follow-up period was not significantly lower in patients treated with Paxlovid. Based on these findings, we do not see evidence of Paxlovid’s effectiveness as a preventative against PASC in general. However, we also find evidence that the treatment effect varies by symptom type and patient population. Future research will explore potential heterogeneous treatment effects across PASC subphenotypes and demographic groups.

## METHODS

This study is part of the NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recover (RECOVER) Initiative, which seeks to understand, treat, and prevent PASC. For more information on RECOVER, visit [https://recovercovid.org](https://recovercovid.org). All analyses described here were performed within the secure N3C Data Enclave.

We emulated a target trial to estimate the effect of Paxlovid treatment during acute COVID-19 on the cumulative incidence of PASC. We followed a two-step process for emulating target trials with observational data: first, we articulated the causal question of interest in the form of a hypothetical trial protocol (Table 3).51 Second, we emulated each component of this protocol using the N3C Enclave, which integrates EHR data for 21 million patients from 83 data partners across the United States. N3C’s methods for data acquisition, ingestion, and harmonization have been reported elsewhere.20,52,53 All results are reported in adherence with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.54

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/T3)

Table 3: Protocol of a Target Trial Emulation to Estimate the Effect of Paxlovid Treatment during Acute COVID-19 on Cumulative PASC Incidence

### Eligibility Criteria

The study period spanned April 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023, with an index cutoff date of February 28, 2023 (180 days before the end of the study period). We excluded the period between December 21, 2021 (date of Paxlovid EUA) and March 31, 2022 due to the variability in case counts and prescription patterns during the first wave of the Omicron variant.56 We used data from RECOVER release v141 (August 14, 2023) in the N3C Enclave.

Our inclusion criteria emulated the target trial’s eligibility criteria: 1) having a documented COVID-19 index date within the study period (with *index date* defined as the earliest date of either a COVID-19 diagnosis [ICD-10 code U07.1] or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result), 2) being ≥ 18 years of age at the COVID-19 index date (due to potential differences in clinical characteristics and prescription practices between pediatric and adult patients57,58), and 3) having ≥ 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19 per CDC guidelines (age ≥ 50 years or diagnosis of a comorbidity associated with higher risk of severe COVID-1955). For patients with > 1 COVID-19 index date in the study period, we selected a single index date per the following criteria: 1) if Paxlovid was prescribed within 5 days of one index date, use that index date, 2) if Paxlovid was prescribed within 5 days of > 1 index date, use the first, and 3) if Paxlovid was not prescribed within 5 days of any index date, use the first index date.

We also applied a set of exclusion criteria, to exclude: 1) patients who were hospitalized on the COVID-19 index date, 2) patients with PASC (see Treatment and Outcome) prior to or on the COVID-19 index date, 3) patients who were prescribed a drug with a severe interaction with Paxlovid in the 30 days prior to the COVID-19 index.59 Furthermore, to ensure that data were captured from sites with high fidelity and adequate coverage, we only included data from 28 sites with at least 5% of eligible patients, and a minimum of 500 patients, treated with Paxlovid during the study period.

### Treatment and Outcome

Eligible patients were categorized by their treatment exposure. The treatment group was defined as having been prescribed Paxlovid within 5 days of their COVID-19 index date. The control group was defined as the complement, with one exception. Patients who were prescribed Paxlovid within 5 days of COVID-19 index, but were hospitalized prior to treatment, were included in the control group and censored at the date of Paxlovid prescription (see Statistical Analysis for more on censoring). We took this approach because inpatient Paxlovid treatment (presumably after COVID-19 is already severe) is a different treatment modality, and we intended to study on-label outpatient treatment. We selected a treatment window of 5 days from COVID-19 index to adhere as closely as possible to treatment guidelines (within 5 days of symptom onset) with the available data. We identified 10 Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [OMOP] concepts that correspond to Paxlovid in N3C and used these concepts to measure treatment.60

We considered two measures of the PASC outcome. Our primary outcome leveraged a computable phenotype: a machine learning model trained to predict PASC diagnoses (ICD-10 code U09.9). An earlier version of this computable phenotype was used in prior work. For this study, we used an updated version better suited for the later phase of the pandemic.22,61 We followed patients for 180 days following their COVID-19 index date. PASC date was defined as the date of the maximum computable phenotype prediction above a threshold of 0.9, or, if present, the date of U09.9 diagnosis, whichever was earlier. Computable phenotype model scores were not generated for patients. Patients over 100 years old at COVID-19 index did not receive model scores and were excluded from the primary outcome analysis.

Our secondary outcome examined PASC symptom clusters--cognitive, fatigue, and respiratory--proposed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) program (“GBD symptom clusters” henceforth).23 For the GBD symptom cluster outcomes, PASC date was defined as the onset date of any novel symptom in the cluster at least 28 days after COVID-19 index (we defined novel symptoms as symptoms that did not occur in the three years prior to COVID-19 index).

### Statistical Analysis

Our estimand was the cumulative incidence of PASC from 29 to 180 days after COVID-19 index. We applied a potential outcomes framework to compare the rate of PASC among patients who received treatment to those who did not. We use inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting to emulate random assignment through exchangeability between treatment arms. Our treatment model included the following pre-treatment covariates: sex, age (binned), race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; binned), Community Well-Being Index (CWBI; binned), number of visits in the year prior to index (binned), number of hospitalizations in the year prior to index (binned), month of COVID-19 onset, and site of care provision. Our rationale for using these covariates is as follows. Many studies have shown disparity in COVID-19 treatment and outcome by race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health.62–65 Sex, age, and comorbidities are known to affect care seeking and the outcome of COVID-19. Past healthcare utilization could affect the likelihood of treatment seeking and PASC documentation. Finally, the index month was included because Paxlovid treatment rates, viral variants, and infection rates changed during the study period. CCI was coded as missing when no condition records were present in N3C prior to index. CWBI was coded as missing when patient ZIP code was not reported. We used this treatment model to generate stabilized IPT weights trimmed at the 99.5th percentile. We assessed covariate balance using absolute standardized differences. To estimate the cumulative incidence of PASC, we used IPT-weighted Aalen-Johansen estimators. We used bootstrapping with 200 iterations to estimate the 95% confidence interval at an alpha of 0.05.

We censored patients at the following events: 1) death, 2) last documented visit in the study period, 3) PASC outcome within 28 days of COVID-19 index, and 4) 180 days after index (end of study period). We also censored patients in the control group if they received Paxlovid. This could occur if they received Paxlovid within 5 days of index, but after hospitalization (see Treatment and Outcome). It could also occur if they received Paxlovid later in the study period, but not within 5 days of a COVID-19 index (see Eligibility Criteria).

In addition, we conducted two supplementary analyses (Supplements D and E) and five sensitivity analyses (Supplement F).

### Subanalyses

To validate our results against both the current state of literature, and against other observational patient-level datasets, we conduct two subanalyses. The first attempted to mirror the cohort used in Xie et al (2023). We refer to this as the “VA-like cohort”. In this analysis, we used the same study start and end dates as Xie et al. (January 3, 2022, and December 31, 2022). To mirror VA demographics, we filtered the cohort to males >= 65 years old at COVID-19 index. To reflect the high continuity of care of the VA system, we filtered our cohort to patients with at least two visits in the year prior to COVID-19 index.

Additionally, we collaborated with colleagues from the PCORnet Clinical Research Network’s RECOVER EHR cohort to run a similar analysis across records from 29 sites. This analysis used PCORnet’s rules-based PASC definition, which is based on the novel onset of any of 25 symptoms, as the primary outcome.66,67 Detailed methods and results for this analysis are shown in Supplement C.

## DISCLOSURES

This group of authors has no relevant disclosures to report.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Authorship has been determined according to ICMJE recommendations.

## DATA SHARING

The N3C data transfer to NCATS is performed under a Johns Hopkins University reliance protocol (IRB00249128) or individual site agreements with the NIH. The N3C Data Enclave is managed under the authority of the NIH; more information can be found at ncats.nih.gov/n3c/resources. Enclave data is protected, and can be accessed for COVID-19-related research with an institutional review board-approved protocol and data use request. The Data Use Request ID for this study is RP-5677B5. Enclave and data access instructions can be found at [https://covid.cd2h.org/for-researchers](https://covid.cd2h.org/for-researchers). All code used to produce the analyses in this manuscript is available within the N3C Data Enclave to users with valid login credentials to support reproducibility.

## Data Availability

Enclave and data access instructions can be found at [https://covid.cd2h.org/for-researchers](https://covid.cd2h.org/for-researchers). All code used to produce the analyses in this manuscript is available within the N3C Data Enclave to users with valid login credentials to support reproducibility.

[https://covid.cd2h.org/for-researchers](https://covid.cd2h.org/for-researchers) 

## SUPPLEMENT A - ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES

View this table:
[Table SA1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/T4)

Table SA1 Estimated treatment effects across all analyses

![Figure SA1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure SA1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F4)

Figure SA1 
Forest Plot of Treatment Effects across all analyses

![Figure SA2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure SA2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F5)

Figure SA2 
Covariate Balance (N3C Cohort)

![Figure SA3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure SA3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F6)

Figure SA3: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by GBD Symptom Clusters

## SUPPLEMENT B - ADDITIONAL FIGURES, VA-LIKE SUBANALYSIS

![Figure SB1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F7.medium.gif)

[Figure SB1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F7)

Figure SB1: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with threshold of 0.9 or U09.9, VA-like Subanalysis

![Figure SB2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F8.medium.gif)

[Figure SB2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F8)

Figure SB2: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by GBD Symptom Clusters, VA-like Subanalysis

## SUPPLEMENT C - PCORNET SUBANALYSIS

### Methods

The PCORnet’s Long COVID definition for adult is rules-based by leveraging ICD codes covering 25 clinical symptoms, including anemia, thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, dementia, pulmonary fibrosis/edema/inflammation, smell and taste, diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, fluid disorders, general PASC diagnoses U099/B948, encephalopathy, abnormal heartbeat, chest pain, abdominal pain, constipation, joint pain, cognitive problems, headache, sleep wake disorders, dyspnea (or shortness of breath), acute pharyngitis, hair loss, edema, fever, malaise and fatigue.66,67 The incident post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) symptoms from the list above was observed during the post-acute phase (30 to 180 days after the index date), while absent during the baseline period (7 days to 3 years preceding the index date). Individuals classified as having incident PASC when he/she exhibited at least one incident PASC-related symptom during the post-acute phase.

The same set of covariates as N3C were built for the adjustment analyses, including age, self-reported sex, race/ethnicity, CCI score, baseline hospitalization utilization, social-economic status and infection time. The social-economic status was quantified by the national-level area deprivation index (ADI) linked by either 9-digit zip code or geocode. The IPTW re-weighted survival analyses, including Cox proportional hazard model for the relative risk, and the Aalen-Johansen model for the cumulative incidence. Both methods considered the death to be a competing risk for the target incident outcomes. The IPTW weights were learned based on method from Zang et al.68

### Results

View this table:
[Table SC1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/T5)

Table SC1: Estimated treatment effects across all analyses, PCORnet Subanalysis

## SUPPLEMENT D - OUTCOME DEFINED BY CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS

In addition to results from our primary analysis, we defined our outcome of PASC as only patients with a recorded U09.9 diagnoses, indicating a clinician-reported outcome of PASC. For this analysis, we excluded patients from data partners that did not frequently use the U09.9 code. We defined this criterion as at least 1% of patients with a COVID-19 index (across all N3C data, not just in our study period) having a U09.9 diagnosis.

Of the total 426,461 patients, 409,980 (96.14%) remained after applying the site-level U09.9 usage criterion. Without adjustment for covariates, 781 (0.66%) patients treated with Paxlovid had a U09.9 diagnosis in the follow-up period, compared to 1,662 (0.57%) patients in the untreated group. Weighted Aalen-Johansen estimates of cumulative incidence were 0.76% (95% CI 0.70-0.82) for patients treated with Paxlovid and 0.68% (95% CI 0.64-0.71) for patients not treated with Paxlovid. Adjusted relative risk was 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.22). (See Figure SD1)

![Figure SD1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F9.medium.gif)

[Figure SD1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F9)

Figure SD1 
Cumulative Incidence of PASC in Non-Paxlovid and Paxlovid treated patients, defined by onset of U09.9 diagnosis code

## SUPPLEMENT E - VACCINATION-AWARE ANALYSIS

For this supplementary analysis, we included COVID-19 vaccination status as a covariate, and replicated our primary analysis. We considered vaccination to be a plausible confounder of Paxlovid treatment and documented PASC, either through acute infection severity or propensity to seek care. We followed a similar procedure as in our earlier work estimating the effect of Paxlovid treatment on hospitalization.3 Because vaccination status in N3C is subject to misclassification, we used a subcohort of patients from sites with reliable vaccination data. We categorized patients by their vaccination status prior to their COVID-19 index date, defined as having completed a full course of vaccination at least 14 days prior to index. Partially vaccinated patients and patients who became fully vaccinated fewer than 14 days prior to index were excluded from the analysis.

In the subanalysis including COVID-19 vaccination status as a covariate, the cohort included 164,966 patients from 8 sites that met vaccination data quality criteria. Of this cohort, 59,257 (35.92%) were treated with Paxlovid, and 8,825 (5.35%) had PASC according to our primary outcome measure. Adjusted relative risk was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-1.00).

![Figure SD1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F10.medium.gif)

[Figure SD1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F10)

Figure SD1 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with threshold of 0.9 or U09.9, additionally adjusted for vaccination status and among data partners meeting vaccination data quality criteria

## SUPPLEMENT F - SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

### Methods

First, we used a doubly-robust estimation method in case the treatment model was misspecified. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation was not feasible with our cohort and computing environment, so we were unable to estimate cumulative incidence using a doubly-robust method. Instead, we estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of Paxlovid treatment as a secondary estimand. We used inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for the same baseline covariates as the treatment model. The same bootstrap procedure was used to estimate confidence intervals.

Second, we tested various computable phenotype prediction thresholds. In addition to the 0.9 threshold used in the primary analysis, we tested prediction thresholds at 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, and 0.95.

Third, we included Paxlovid treatment as a COVID-19 index event. This added 33,571 additional patients who were treated with Paxlovid during the study period, but did not have a U07.1 diagnosis or a positive lab test in the five days prior to treatment.

Fourth, we also tested sensitivity to COVID-19 index definition by including only positive lab tests as index events (i.e., we did not include U07.1 diagnoses without accompanying lab results).

Fifth, we tested sensitivity to outcome definition in two ways: by requiring outcomes to occur 90 days after COVID-19 index (rather than 29 days) and by observing patients for up to 365 days (rather than 180 days).

![Figure SF1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F11.medium.gif)

[Figure SF1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F11)

Figure SF1: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with thresholds ranging from 0.75 to 0.95 or U09.9, by CP model threshold

![Figure SF2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F12.medium.gif)

[Figure SF2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F12)

Figure SF2: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with threshold of 0.9 or U09.9, Paxlovid treatments without accompanying lab tests or U07.1 diagnoses included as index events

![Figure SF3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F13.medium.gif)

[Figure SF3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F13)

Figure SF3: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with threshold of 0.9 or U09.9, positive lab required for COVID-19 index (i.e., U07.1 diagnoses without accompanying lab tests not included as index events)

![Figure SF4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F14.medium.gif)

[Figure SF4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301525/F14)

Figure SF4: 
Cumulative incidence of PASC in Paxlovid treated vs. Non-Paxlovid-Treated patients by predicted outcome from CP model with threshold of 0.9 or U09.9, by time window

### Results

Our findings were not sensitive to the use of different computable phenotype prediction thresholds, or to the use of different PASC timing windows.

However, other sensitivity analyses produced different results. Treating only positive lab tests as index events, Paxlovid appeared to have an anti-protective effect on PASC. There is no plausible mechanism for this to be the case, and it is likely due to bias in the subset of COVID-19 patients who had documented lab tests in an era when home testing was common.

In our analysis including treatment with Paxlovid as a COVID-19 index event (i.e., including patients who received Paxlovid but did not have a COVID-19 diagnosis or positive lab result), we also found a significant, protective treatment effect (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98). In the absence of a COVID-19 diagnostic code (U07.1) or positive laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 test to mark a COVID-19 index date, the additional subset of the patient population treated with Paxlovid here may still represent true COVID-19 cases, treated for suspected (but not laboratory-confirmed COVID-19), or with a recent personal history of COVID-19 (Z86.16).69 Within the resulting patient cohort, the treatment effect of Paxlovid on PASC was statistically significant, but the effect size remained practically insignificant.

Using a doubly robust estimator and the hazard ratio (HR) of Paxlovid treatment as the estimand, we found a small but significant treatment effect (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98). This suggests that some residual confounding may remain after IPTW, however, the treatment effect remains practically insignificant.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is part of the NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, which seeks to understand, treat, and prevent the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). For more information on RECOVER, visit [https://recovercovid.org/](https://recovercovid.org/). This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Agreement OTA OT2HL161847 as part of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) research program.

The analyses described in this manuscript were conducted with data or tools accessed through the NCATS N3C Data Enclave [https://covid.cd2h.org](https://covid.cd2h.org) and N3C Attribution & Publication Policy v 1.2-2020-08-25b supported by NCATS U24 TR002306, Axle Informatics Subcontract: NCATS-P00438-B, and by the RECOVER Initiative (OT2HL161847–01). The N3C Publication committee confirmed that this manuscript msid:1733.497 is in accordance with N3C data use and attribution policies; however, this content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the RECOVER or N3C programs. This research was possible because of the patients whose information is included within the data and the organizations ([https://ncats.nih.gov/n3c/resources/data-contribution/data-transfer-agreement-signatories](https://ncats.nih.gov/n3c/resources/data-contribution/data-transfer-agreement-signatories)) and scientists who have contributed to the on-going development of this community resource [[https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa196](https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa196)]. We would also like to thank the National Community Engagement Group (NCEG), all patient, caregiver and community Representatives, and all the participants enrolled in the RECOVER Initiative.

We also acknowledge the following institutions whose data is released or pending:

Available: Advocate Health Care Network — UL1TR002389: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) • Aurora Health Care Inc — UL1TR002373: Wisconsin Network For Health Research • Boston University Medical Campus — UL1TR001430: Boston University Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Brown University — U54GM115677: Advance Clinical Translational Research (Advance-CTR) • Carilion Clinic — UL1TR003015: iTHRIV Integrated Translational health Research Institute of Virginia • Case Western Reserve University — UL1TR002548: The Clinical & Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland (CTSC) • Charleston Area Medical Center — U54GM104942: West Virginia Clinical and Translational Science Institute (WVCTSI) • Children’s Hospital Colorado — UL1TR002535: Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute • Columbia University Irving Medical Center — UL1TR001873: Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research • Dartmouth College — None (Voluntary) Duke University — UL1TR002553: Duke Clinical and Translational Science Institute • George Washington Children’s Research Institute — UL1TR001876: Clinical and Translational Science Institute at Children’s National (CTSA-CN) • George Washington University — UL1TR001876: Clinical and Translational Science Institute at Children’s National (CTSA-CN) • Harvard Medical School — UL1TR002541: Harvard Catalyst • Indiana University School of Medicine — UL1TR002529: Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Johns Hopkins University — UL1TR003098: Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research • Louisiana Public Health Institute — None (Voluntary) • Loyola Medicine — Loyola University Medical Center • Loyola University Medical Center — UL1TR002389: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) • Maine Medical Center — U54GM115516: Northern New England Clinical & Translational Research (NNE-CTR) Network • Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital & Dartmouth Hitchcock Clinic — None (Voluntary) • Massachusetts General Brigham — UL1TR002541: Harvard Catalyst • Mayo Clinic Rochester — UL1TR002377: Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS) • Medical University of South Carolina — UL1TR001450: South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR) • MITRE Corporation — None (Voluntary) • Montefiore Medical Center — UL1TR002556: Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Einstein and Montefiore • Nemours — U54GM104941: Delaware CTR ACCEL Program • NorthShore University HealthSystem — UL1TR002389: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) • Northwestern University at Chicago — UL1TR001422: Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS) • OCHIN — INV-018455: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant to Sage Bionetworks • Oregon Health & Science University — UL1TR002369: Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute • Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center — UL1TR002014: Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Rush University Medical Center — UL1TR002389: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey — UL1TR003017: New Jersey Alliance for Clinical and Translational Science • Stony Brook University — U24TR002306 • The Alliance at the University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus — U54GM133807: Hispanic Alliance for Clinical and Translational Research (The Alliance) • The Ohio State University — UL1TR002733: Center for Clinical and Translational Science • The State University of New York at Buffalo — UL1TR001412: Clinical and Translational Science Institute • The University of Chicago — UL1TR002389: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) • The University of Iowa — UL1TR002537: Institute for Clinical and Translational Science • The University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine — UL1TR002736: University of Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute • The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor — UL1TR002240: Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston — UL1TR003167: Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS) • The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston — UL1TR001439: The Institute for Translational Sciences • The University of Utah — UL1TR002538: Uhealth Center for Clinical and Translational Science • Tufts Medical Center — UL1TR002544: Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Tulane University — UL1TR003096: Center for Clinical and Translational Science • The Queens Medical Center — None (Voluntary) • University Medical Center New Orleans — U54GM104940: Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science (LA CaTS) Center • University of Alabama at Birmingham — UL1TR003096: Center for Clinical and Translational Science • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences — UL1TR003107: UAMS Translational Research Institute • University of Cincinnati — UL1TR001425: Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training • University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus — UL1TR002535: Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute • University of Illinois at Chicago — UL1TR002003: UIC Center for Clinical and Translational Science • University of Kansas Medical Center — UL1TR002366: Frontiers: University of Kansas Clinical and Translational Science Institute • University of Kentucky — UL1TR001998: UK Center for Clinical and Translational Science • University of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester — UL1TR001453: The UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science (UMCCTS) • University Medical Center of Southern Nevada — None (voluntary) • University of Minnesota— UL1TR002494: Clinical and Translational Science Institute • University of Mississippi Medical Center — U54GM115428: Mississippi Center for Clinical and Translational Research (CCTR) • University of Nebraska Medical Center — U54GM115458: Great Plains IDeA-Clinical & Translational Research • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill — UL1TR002489: North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center — U54GM104938: Oklahoma Clinical and Translational Science Institute (OCTSI) • University of Pittsburgh — UL1TR001857: The Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) • University of Pennsylvania — UL1TR001878: Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics • University of Rochester — UL1TR002001: UR Clinical & Translational Science Institute • University of Southern California — UL1TR001855: The Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute (SC CTSI) • University of Vermont — U54GM115516: Northern New England Clinical & Translational Research (NNE-CTR) Network • University of Virginia — UL1TR003015: iTHRIV Integrated Translational health Research Institute of Virginia • University of Washington — UL1TR002319: Institute of Translational Health Sciences • University of Wisconsin-Madison — UL1TR002373: UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research • Vanderbilt University Medical Center — UL1TR002243: Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research • Virginia Commonwealth University — UL1TR002649: C. Kenneth and Dianne Wright Center for Clinical and Translational Research • Wake Forest University Health Sciences — UL1TR001420: Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Washington University in St. Louis — UL1TR002345: Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences • Weill Medical College of Cornell University — UL1TR002384: Weill Cornell Medicine Clinical and Translational Science Center • West Virginia University — U54GM104942: West Virginia Clinical and Translational Science Institute (WVCTSI) Submitted: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai — UL1TR001433: ConduITS Institute for Translational Sciences • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler — UL1TR003167: Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS) • University of California, Davis — UL1TR001860: UCDavis Health Clinical and Translational Science Center • University of California, Irvine — UL1TR001414: The UC Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Science (ICTS) • University of California, Los Angeles — UL1TR001881: UCLA Clinical Translational Science Institute • University of California, San Diego — UL1TR001442: Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute • University of California, San Francisco — UL1TR001872: UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute Pending: Arkansas Children’s Hospital — UL1TR003107: UAMS Translational Research Institute • Baylor College of Medicine — None (Voluntary) • Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia — UL1TR001878: Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics • Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center — UL1TR001425: Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training • Emory University — UL1TR002378: Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance • HonorHealth — None (Voluntary) • Loyola University Chicago— UL1TR002389: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) • Medical College of Wisconsin — UL1TR001436: Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin • MedStar Health Research Institute — None (Voluntary) • Georgetown University — UL1TR001409: The Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUCCTS) • MetroHealth — None (Voluntary) • Montana State University — U54GM115371: American Indian/Alaska Native CTR • NYU Langone Medical Center — UL1TR001445: Langone Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Ochsner Medical Center — U54GM104940: Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science (LA CaTS) Center • Regenstrief Institute — UL1TR002529: Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Sanford Research — None (Voluntary) • Stanford University — UL1TR003142: Spectrum: The Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Research and Education • The Rockefeller University — UL1TR001866: Center for Clinical and Translational Science • The Scripps Research Institute — UL1TR002550: Scripps Research Translational Institute • University of Florida — UL1TR001427: UF Clinical and Translational Science Institute • University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center — UL1TR001449: University of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science Center • University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio — UL1TR002645: Institute for Integration of Medicine and Science • Yale New Haven Hospital — UL1TR001863: Yale Center for Clinical Investigation

*   Received January 20, 2024.
*   Revision received January 20, 2024.
*   Accepted January 22, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  Dryden-Peterson S, Kim A, Kim AY, Caniglia EC, Lennes IT, Patel R et al. Nirmatrelvir Plus Ritonavir for Early COVID-19 in a Large U.S. Health System: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176: 77–84.
    
    

2.  Hammond J, Leister-Tebbe H, Gardner A, Abreu P, Bao W, Wisemandle W et al. Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2022; 386: 1397–1408.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/nejmoa2118542&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

3.  Bhatia A, Preiss AJ, Xiao X, Brannock MD, Alexander GC, Chew RF et al. Effect of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) on Hospitalization among Adults with COVID-19: an EHR-based Target Trial Emulation from N3C. medRxiv 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.05.03.23289084.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMy4wNS4wMy4yMzI4OTA4NHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMjIvMjAyNC4wMS4yMC4yNDMwMTUyNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

4.  Najjar-Debbiny R, Gronich N, Weber G, Khoury J, Amar M, Stein N et al. Effectiveness of Paxlovid in Reducing Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Mortality in High-Risk Patients. Clin Infect Dis 2023; 76: e342–e349.
    
    

5.  Malden DE, Hong V, Lewin BJ, et al. Hospitalization and Emergency Department Encounters for COVID-19 After Paxlovid Treatment — California. 2022.
    
    

6.  Yip TC-F, Lui GC-Y, Lai MS-M, Wong VW-S, Tse Y-K, Ma BH-M et al. Impact of the Use of Oral Antiviral Agents on the Risk of Hospitalization in Community Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis 2023; 76: e26–e33.
    
    

7.  Lin D-Y, Abi Fadel F, Huang S, Milinovich AT, Sacha GL, Bartley P et al. Nirmatrelvir or Molnupiravir Use and Severe Outcomes From Omicron Infections. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6: e2335077.
    
    

8.  Peluso MJ, Anglin K, Durstenfeld MS, Martin JN, Kelly JD, Hsue PY et al. Effect of Oral Nirmatrelvir on Long COVID Symptoms: 4 Cases and Rationale for Systematic Studies. Pathog Immun 2022; 7: 95–103.
    
    

9.  Geng LN, Bonilla HF, Shafer RW, Miglis MG, Yang PC. The use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in a case of breakthrough long COVID. Explor Res Hypothesis Med 2023; 000: 000–000.
    
    

10. Visvabharathy L, Orban ZS, Koralnik IJ. Case report: Treatment of long COVID with a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral and IL-6 blockade in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis and SARS-CoV-2 antigen persistence. Front Med 2022; 9: 1003103.
    
    

11. Cohen AK, Jaudon TW, Schurman EM, Kava L, Vogel JM, Haas-Godsil J et al. Impact of extended-course oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in established Long COVID: Case series and research considerations. Res Sq 2023. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3359429/v1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21203/rs.3.rs-3359429/v1&link_type=DOI) 

12. McCarthy MW. Paxlovid as a potential treatment for long COVID. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2023; 24: 1839–1843.
    
    

13. Xie Y, Bowe B, Al-Aly Z. Burdens of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 by severity of acute infection, demographics and health status. Nat Commun 2021; 12: 6571.
    
    

14.  Perez Giraldo GS, Ali ST, Kang AK, Patel TR, Budhiraja S, Gaelen JI et al. Neurologic Manifestations of Long COVID Differ Based on Acute COVID-19 Severity. Ann Neurol 2023; 94: 146–159.
    
    

15. Hill EL, Mehta HB, Sharma S, Mane K, Singh SK, Xie C et al. Risk factors associated with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2: an N3C and NIH RECOVER study. BMC Public Health 2023; 23: 2103.
    
    

16. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Palacios-Ceña D, Gómez-Mayordomo V, Florencio LL, Cuadrado ML, Plaza-Manzano G et al. Prevalence of post-COVID-19 symptoms in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Intern Med 2021; 92: 55–70.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejim.2021.06.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

17. Xie Y, Choi T, Al-Aly Z. Association of Treatment With Nirmatrelvir and the Risk of Post-COVID-19 Condition. JAMA Intern Med 2023; 183: 554–564.
    
    

18. Durstenfeld MS, Peluso MJ, Lin F, Peyser ND, Isasi C, Carton TW et al. Association of nirmatrelvir for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with subsequent Long COVID symptoms in an observational cohort study. J Med Virol 2024; 96: e29333.
    
    

19. Congdon S, Narrowe Z, Yone N, Gunn J, Deng Y, Nori P et al. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and risk of long COVID symptoms: A retrospective cohort study. 2023. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3231786/v1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21203/rs.3.rs-3231786/v1&link_type=DOI) 

20. Haendel MA, Chute CG, Bennett TD, Eichmann DA, Guinney J, Kibbe WA et al. The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C): Rationale, design, infrastructure, and deployment. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28: 427–443.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

21. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. Am J Epidemiol 2016; 183: 758–764.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwv254&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26994063&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

22. Pfaff ER, Girvin AT, Bennett TD, Bhatia A, Brooks IM, Deer RR et al. Identifying who has long COVID in the USA: a machine learning approach using N3C data. Lancet Digit Health 2022; 4: e532–e541.
    
    

23. Global Burden of Disease Long COVID Collaborators,  Wulf Hanson S, Abbafati C, Aerts JG, Al-Aly Z, Ashbaugh C et al. Estimated Global Proportions of Individuals With Persistent Fatigue, Cognitive, and Respiratory Symptom Clusters Following Symptomatic COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021. JAMA 2022; 328: 1604–1615.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2022.18931&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

24. SPH and Sharecare Release Community Well-Being Rankings. [https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2020/sph-and-sharecare-release-community-well-being-rankings/](https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2020/sph-and-sharecare-release-community-well-being-rankings/) (accessed 30 Mar2023).
    
    

25. Iwasaki A, Putrino D. Why we need a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of long COVID. Lancet Infect Dis 2023; 23: 393–395.
    
    

26. Anschuetz N. DU Study Finds History of TBI Likely Worsens Long COVID Symptoms. University of Denver. 2023. [https://www.du.edu/news/du-study-finds-history-tbi-likely-worsens-long-covid-symptoms](https://www.du.edu/news/du-study-finds-history-tbi-likely-worsens-long-covid-symptoms) (accessed 15 Dec2023).
    
    

27. Schneider ALC, Peltz CB, Li Y, Bahorik A, Gardner RC, Yaffe K. Traumatic Brain Injury and Long-Term Risk of Stroke Among US Military Veterans. Stroke 2023; 54: 2059–2068.
    
    

28. Granados G, Sáez-López M, Aljama C, Sampol J, Cruz M-J, Ferrer J et al. Asbestos Exposure and Severity of COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19. doi:10.3390/ijerph192316305.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph192316305&link_type=DOI) 

29. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. [https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/essentials/epidemiology.asp](https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/essentials/epidemiology.asp) (accessed 15 Dec 2023).
    
    

30. Munz A. Why should veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma seek legal help? Mesothelioma Center - Vital Services for Cancer Patients & Families, 2022 [https://www.asbestos.com/veterans/](https://www.asbestos.com/veterans/) (accessed 15 Dec2023).
    
    

31. Morgan RO, Teal CR, Reddy SG, Ford ME, Ashton CM. Measurement in Veterans Affairs Health Services Research: veterans as a special population. Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 1573–1583.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00448.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16178996&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231908400002&link_type=ISI) 

32. Wen W, Chen C, Tang J, Wang C, Zhou M, Cheng Y et al. Efficacy and safety of three new oral antiviral treatment (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) for COVID-19:a meta-analysis. Ann Med 2022; 54: 516–523.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/07853890.2022.2034936&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

33. Zheng Q, Ma P, Wang M, Cheng Y, Zhou M, Ye L et al. Efficacy and safety of Paxlovid for COVID-19:a meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2023; 86: 66–117.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jinf.2022.09.027&link_type=DOI) 

34. RECOVER-VITAL: Platform Protocol to Measure the Effects of Antiviral Therapies on Long COVID Symptoms - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. [https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05595369](https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05595369) (accessed 29 Nov 2023).
    
    

35. Bendix A, Mogg K, Murphy J. Paxlovid may reduce the chance of long Covid. Why don’t doctors prescribe it more? NBC News. 2023. [https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/paxlovid-may-prevent-long-covid-but-not-prescribed-rcna119737](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/paxlovid-may-prevent-long-covid-but-not-prescribed-rcna119737) (accessed 15 Dec2023).
    
    

36. van Walraven C, Bennett C, Forster AJ. Administrative database research infrequently used validated diagnostic or procedural codes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1054–1059.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21474278&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

37. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci 2010; 25: 1–21.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1214/09-STS313&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20871802&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

38. Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2008; 171: 481–502.
    
    

39. Gupta S, Wang W, Hayek SS, Chan L, Mathews KS, Melamed ML et al. Association Between Early Treatment With Tocilizumab and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med 2021; 181: 41–51.
    
    

40. Petito LC, García-Albéniz X, Logan RW, Howlader N, Mariotto AB, Dahabreh IJ et al. Estimates of Overall Survival in Patients With Cancer Receiving Different Treatment Regimens: Emulating Hypothetical Target Trials in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Linked Database. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e200452.
    
    

41. Dickerman BA, García-Albéniz X, Logan RW, Denaxas S, Hernán MA. Avoidable flaws in observational analyses: an application to statins and cancer. Nat Med 2019; 25: 1601–1606.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-019-0597-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

42. Admon AJ, Donnelly JP, Casey JD, Janz DR, Russell DW, Joffe AM et al. Emulating a Novel Clinical Trial Using Existing Observational Data. Predicting Results of the PreVent Study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019; 16: 998–1007.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

43. Soriano JB, Murthy S, Marshall JC, Relan P, Diaz JV, WHO Clinical Case Definition Working Group on Post-COVID-19 Condition. A clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. Lancet Infect Dis 2022; 22: e102–e107.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00703-9/ATTACHMENT/31179DEC-CF64-455B-BD13-6EF0045B7DD6/MMC1.PDF&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

44. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. National Research Action Plan on Long COVID. 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20201., 2022.
    
    

45. Munblit D, O’Hara ME, Akrami A, Perego E, Olliaro P, Needham DM. Long COVID: aiming for a consensus. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 632–634.
    
    

46. EnSpark Consulting. What We Heard: Engagement Report on the Working Definition for Long COVID. Washington, DC, 2023.
    
    

47. Crosskey M, McIntee T, Preiss S, Brannock D, Yoo YJ, Hadley E, et al. Reengineering a machine learning phenotype to adapt to the changing COVID-19 landscape: A study from the N3C and RECOVER consortia. bioRxiv. 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.12.08.23299718.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1101/2023.12.08.23299718&link_type=DOI) 

48. Wells BJ, Chagin KM, Nowacki AS, Kattan MW. Strategies for handling missing data in electronic health record derived data. EGEMS (Wash DC*)* 2013; 1: 1035.
    
    

49. Lin KJ, Glynn RJ, Singer DE, Murphy SN, Lii J, Schneeweiss S. Out-of-system Care and Recording of Patient Characteristics Critical for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Epidemiology 2018; 29: 356–363.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

50. Wang LE, Shaw PA, Mathelier HM, Kimmel SE, French B. Evaluating Risk-Prediction Models Using Data from Electronic Health Records. Ann Appl Stat 2016; 10: 286–304.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1214/15-AOAS891&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27158296&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

51. Hernán MA, Wang W, Leaf DE. Target Trial Emulation: A Framework for Causal Inference From Observational Data. JAMA 2022; 328: 2446–2447.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2022.21383&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36508210&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

52. Pfaff ER, Girvin AT, Gabriel DL, Kostka K, Morris M, Palchuk MB et al. Synergies between centralized and federated approaches to data quality: a report from the national COVID cohort collaborative. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29: 609–618.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

53. Phenotype\_Data\_Acquisition: The repository for code and documentation produced by the N3C Phenotype and Data Acquisition workstream. Github [https://github.com/National-COVID-Cohort-Collaborative/Phenotype\_Data\_Acquisition](https://github.com/National-COVID-Cohort-Collaborative/Phenotype_Data_Acquisition) (accessed 26 Mar2023).
    
    

54. British Medical Journal Publishing Group. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007; 335. doi:10.1136/bmj.39386.490150.94.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMzUvNzYyNi8wLWEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMS8yMi8yMDI0LjAxLjIwLjI0MzAxNTI1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

55. CDC. Interim Clinical Considerations for COVID-19 Treatment in Outpatients. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2023. [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/outpatient-treatment-overview.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/outpatient-treatment-overview.html) (accessed 26 Mar2023).
    
    

56. Chatterjee S, Bhattacharya M, Nag S, Dhama K, Chakraborty C. A Detailed Overview of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron: Its Sub-Variants, Mutations and Pathophysiology, Clinical Characteristics, Immunological Landscape, Immune Escape, and Therapies. Viruses 2023; 15. doi:10.3390/v15010167.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/v15010167&link_type=DOI) 

57. Howard-Jones AR, Burgner DP, Crawford NW, Goeman E, Gray PE, Hsu P et al. COVID-19 in children. II: Pathogenesis, disease spectrum and management. J Paediatr Child Health 2022; 58: 46–53.
    
    

58. Bose-Brill S, Hirabayashi K, Pajor NM, Rao S, Mejias A, Jhaveri R et al. Pediatric Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescribing Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic. medRxiv 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.22283868.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMi4xMi4yMy4yMjI4Mzg2OHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMjIvMjAyNC4wMS4yMC4yNDMwMTUyNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

59. Paxlovid Drug-Drug Interactions. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. [https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antivirals-including-antibody-products/ritonavir-boosted-nirmatrelvir--paxlovid-/paxlovid-drug-drug-interactions/](https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antivirals-including-antibody-products/ritonavir-boosted-nirmatrelvir--paxlovid-/paxlovid-drug-drug-interactions/) (accessed 27 Nov 2023).
    
    

60. Hripcsak G, Duke JD, Shah NH, Reich CG, Huser V, Schuemie MJ et al. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI): Opportunities for Observational Researchers. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: 574–578.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26262116&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

61. Brannock MD, Chew RF, Preiss AJ, Hadley EC, Redfield S, McMurry JA et al. Long COVID risk and pre-COVID vaccination in an EHR-based cohort study from the RECOVER program. Nat Commun 2023; 14: 2914.
    
    

62. Klein EJ, Hardesty A, Vieira K, Farmakiotis D. Use of anti-spike monoclonal antibodies in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19: Efficacy, ethnic and racial disparities. Am J Transplant 2022; 22: 640–645.
    
    

63. Wiltz JL, Feehan AK, Molinari NM, Ladva CN, Truman BI, Hall J et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Receipt of Medications for Treatment of COVID-19 - United States, March 2020-August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71: 96–102.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7103e1&link_type=DOI) 

64. Wu E-L, Kumar RN, Moore WJ, Hall GT, Vysniauskaite I, Kim K-YA et al. Disparities in COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Delivery: a Retrospective Cohort Study. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37: 2505–2513.
    
    

65. Boehmer TK, Koumans EH, Skillen EL, Kappelman MD, Carton TW, Patel A et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19 - United States, January-July 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71: 1359–1365.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7143a2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36301738&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F22%2F2024.01.20.24301525.atom) 

66. Zang C, Zhang Y, Xu J, Bian J, Morozyuk D, Schenck EJ et al. Data-driven analysis to understand long COVID using electronic health records from the RECOVER initiative. Nat Commun 2023; 14: 1948.
    
    

67. Zhang H, Zang C, Xu Z, Zhang Y, Xu J, Bian J et al. Data-driven identification of post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection subphenotypes. Nat Med 2023; 29: 226–235.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-022-02116-3&link_type=DOI) 

68. Zang C, Zhang H, Xu J, Zhang H, Fouladvand S, Havaldar S et al. High-throughput target trial emulation for Alzheimer’s disease drug repurposing with real-world data. Nat Commun 2023; 14: 8180.
    
    

69. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). New ICD-10-CM code for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). 2020 [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Announcement-New-ICD-code-for-coronavirus-19-508.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Announcement-New-ICD-code-for-coronavirus-19-508.pdf).