Effects of Antidepressants on COVID-19 Outcomes: Retrospective Study on Large-Scale Electronic Health Record Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antidepressants exert an anticholinergic effect in varying degrees, and various classes of antidepressants can produce a different effect on immune function. While the early use of antidepressants has a notional effect on COVID-19 outcomes, the relationship between the risk of COVID-19 severity and the use of antidepressants has not been properly investigated previously owing to the high costs involved with clinical trials. Large-scale observational data and recent advancements in statistical analysis provide ample opportunity to virtualize a clinical trial to discover the detrimental effects of the early use of antidepressants. OBJECTIVE: We primarily aimed to investigate electronic health records for causal effect estimation and use the data for discovering the causal effects of early antidepressant use on COVID-19 outcomes. As a secondary aim, we developed methods for validating our causal effect estimation pipeline. METHODS: We used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a database aggregating health history for over 12 million people in the United States, including over 5 million with a positive COVID-19 test. We selected 241,952 COVID-19-positive patients (age >13 years) with at least 1 year of medical history. The study included a 18,584-dimensional covariate vector for each person and 16 different antidepressants. We used propensity score weighting based on the logistic regression method to estimate causal effects on the entire data. Then, we used the Node2Vec embedding method to encode SNOMED-CT (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms) medical codes and applied random forest regression to estimate causal effects. We used both methods to estimate causal effects of antidepressants on COVID-19 outcomes. We also selected few negatively effective conditions for COVID-19 outcomes and estimated their effects using our proposed methods to validate their efficacy. RESULTS: The average treatment effect (ATE) of using any one of the antidepressants was -0.076 (95% CI -0.082 to -0.069; P<.001) with the propensity score weighting method. For the method using SNOMED-CT medical embedding, the ATE of using any one of the antidepressants was -0.423 (95% CI -0.382 to -0.463; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We applied multiple causal inference methods with novel application of health embeddings to investigate the effects of antidepressants on COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, we proposed a novel drug effect analysis-based evaluation technique to justify the efficacy of the proposed method. This study offers causal inference methods on large-scale electronic health record data to discover the effects of common antidepressants on COVID-19 hospitalization or a worse outcome. We found that common antidepressants may increase the risk of COVID-19 complications and uncovered a pattern where certain antidepressants were associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. While discovering the detrimental effects of these drugs on outcomes could guide preventive care, identification of beneficial effects would allow us to propose drug repurposing for COVID-19 treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".