Deaths of profound despair: A retrospective cohort study of mortality among people experiencing homelessness.

INTRODUCTION: The number of people dying while unhoused is increasing nationally. In Santa Clara County (SCC), deaths of unhoused people have almost tripled in 9 years. This is a retrospective cohort study examining mortality trends among unhoused people in SCC. The objective of the study is to characterize mortality outcomes in the unhoused population, and compare these to the SCC general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained data from the SCC Medical Examiner-Coroner's Office on unhoused people's deaths that occurred between 2011-2019. We analyzed demographic trends and cause of death, compared to mortality data on the SCC general population obtained from CDC databases. We also compared rates of deaths of despair. RESULTS: There were a total of 974 unhoused deaths in the SCC cohort. The unadjusted mortality rate among unhoused people is higher than the general population, and unhoused mortality has increased over time. The standardized mortality ratio for unhoused people is 3.8, compared to the general population in SCC. The most frequent age of death among unhoused people was between 55-64 years old (31.3%), followed by 45-54 (27.5%), compared to 85+ in the general population (38.3%). Over ninety percent of deaths in the general population were due to illness. In contrast, 38.2% of unhoused deaths were due to substance use, 32.0% illness, 19.0% injury, 4.2% homicide, and 4.1% suicide. The proportion of deaths of despair was 9-fold higher in the unhoused cohort compared to the housed cohort. DISCUSSION: Homelessness has profound impacts on health, as people who are unhoused are dying 20 years younger, with higher rates of injurious, treatable, and preventable causes, than people in the general population. System-level, inter-agency interventions are needed. Local governments need to systematically collect housing status at death to monitor mortality patterns among unhoused people, and adapt public health systems to prevent rising unhoused deaths.

Diagnostic Performance of an Antigen Test with RT-PCR for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a Hospital Setting - Los Angeles County, California, June-August 2020.

Prompt and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been important during public health responses for containing the spread of COVID-19, including in hospital settings (1-3). In vitro diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can be expensive, have relatively long turnaround times, and require experienced laboratory personnel.* Antigen detection tests can be rapidly and more easily performed and are less expensive. The performance† of antigen detection tests, compared with that of NAATs, is an area of interest for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Quidel Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Quidel Corporation) received Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for use in symptomatic patients within 5 days of symptom onset (4). The reported test positive percentage agreement§ between this test and an RT-PCR test result is 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.3%-99.4%), and the negative percentage agreement is 100.0% (95% CI = 97.9%-100.0%) in symptomatic patients.¶ However, performance in asymptomatic persons in a university setting has shown lower sensitivity (5); assessment of performance in a clinical setting is ongoing. Data collected during June 30-August 31, 2020, were analyzed to compare antigen test performance with that of RT-PCR in a hospital setting. Among 1,732 paired samples from asymptomatic patients, the antigen test sensitivity was 60.5%, and specificity was 99.5% when compared with RT-PCR. Among 307 symptomatic persons, sensitivity and specificity were 72.1% and 98.7%, respectively. Health care providers must remain aware of the lower sensitivity of this test among asymptomatic and symptomatic persons and consider confirmatory NAAT testing in high-prevalence settings because a false-negative result might lead to failures in infection control and prevention practices and cause delays in diagnosis, isolation, and treatment.