Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
1.
BMC Public Health ; 23(1): 782, 2023 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2305654

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of infectious disease forecasting in informing public policy. However, significant barriers remain for effectively linking infectious disease forecasts to public health decision making, including a lack of model validation. Forecasting model performance and accuracy should be evaluated retrospectively to understand under which conditions models were reliable and could be improved in the future. METHODS: Using archived forecasts from the California Department of Public Health's California COVID Assessment Tool ( https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/ ), we compared how well different forecasting models predicted COVID-19 hospitalization census across California counties and regions during periods of Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variant predominance. RESULTS: Based on mean absolute error estimates, forecasting models had variable performance across counties and through time. When accounting for model availability across counties and dates, some individual models performed consistently better than the ensemble model, but model rankings still differed across counties. Local transmission trends, variant prevalence, and county population size were informative predictors for determining which model performed best for a given county based on a random forest classification analysis. Overall, the ensemble model performed worse in less populous counties, in part because of fewer model contributors in these locations. CONCLUSIONS: Ensemble model predictions could be improved by incorporating geographic heterogeneity in model coverage and performance. Consistency in model reporting and improved model validation can strengthen the role of infectious disease forecasting in real-time public health decision making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Communicable Diseases/epidemiology , California/epidemiology , Public Policy , Decision Making , Hospitalization , Forecasting
2.
PLOS Glob Public Health ; 3(3): e0001252, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2257743

ABSTRACT

The first three SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetic lineages classified as variants of concern (VOCs) in the United States (U.S.) from December 15, 2020 to February 28, 2021, Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and Gamma (P.1) lineages, were initially detected internationally. This investigation examined available travel history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases reported in the U.S. in whom laboratory testing showed one of these initial VOCs. Travel history, demographics, and health outcomes for a convenience sample of persons infected with a SARS-CoV-2 VOC from December 15, 2020 through February 28, 2021 were provided by 35 state and city health departments, and proportion reporting travel was calculated. Of 1,761 confirmed VOC cases analyzed, 1,368 had available data on travel history. Of those with data on travel history, 1,168 (85%) reported no travel preceding laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 and only 105 (8%) reported international travel during the 30 days preceding a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or symptom onset. International travel was reported by 92/1,304 (7%) of persons infected with the Alpha variant, 7/55 (22%) with Beta, and 5/9 (56%) with Gamma. Of the first three SARS-CoV-2 lineages designated as VOCs in the U.S., international travel was common only among the few Gamma cases. Most persons infected with Alpha and Beta variant reported no travel history, therefore, community transmission of these VOCs was likely common in the U.S. by March 2021. These findings underscore the importance of global surveillance using whole genome sequencing to detect and inform mitigation strategies for emerging SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.

3.
Vaccine ; 41(6): 1190-1197, 2023 02 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2227516

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood. METHODS: We assessed predictors of receipt of 2021-2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination. RESULTS: Among 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021-22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10-26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021-2022 season. Factors associated with individuals' likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Seasons , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Pandemics/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , California/epidemiology , Vaccination
4.
Vaccine ; 41(10): 1649-1656, 2023 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2221469

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Ourobjective was todescribe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry. METHODS: A cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention. RESULTS: Among 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination.Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.76) and 0.21 (0.12-0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02-5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01-2.36]).Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80-85%) overall, and 98% (97-99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86-89%). CONCLUSION: Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Vaccination Hesitancy , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Registries
5.
Am J Epidemiol ; 192(6): 895-907, 2023 06 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2212709

ABSTRACT

Concerns about the duration of protection conferred by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have arisen in postlicensure evaluations. "Depletion of susceptibles," a bias driven by differential accrual of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, may obscure vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, hindering interpretation. We enrolled California residents who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests in a matched, test-negative design, case-control study to estimate VE of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines between February 23 and December 5, 2021. We analyzed waning protection following 2 vaccine doses using conditional logistic regression models. Additionally, we used data from a population-based serological study to adjust for "depletion-of-susceptibles" bias and estimated VE for 3 doses, by time since second dose receipt. Pooled VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8, 95.4) at 14 days after second-dose receipt and declined to 50.8% (95% CI: 19.7, 69.8) at 7 months. Adjusting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias, we estimated VE of 53.2% (95% CI: 23.6, 71.2) at 7 months after primary mRNA vaccination series. A booster dose of BN162b2 or mRNA-1273 increased VE to 95.0% (95% CI: 82.8, 98.6). These findings confirm that observed waning of protection is not attributable to epidemiologic bias and support ongoing efforts to administer additional vaccine doses to mitigate burden of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , COVID-19 , Humans , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Case-Control Studies , Vaccine Efficacy , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , RNA, Messenger
6.
Am J Ind Med ; 66(3): 222-232, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2172363

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have evaluated COVID-19 outbreaks and excess mortality by occupation sectors. Studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection across occupation and occupation-related factors remain lacking. In this study, we estimate the effect of in-person work on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among working adults. METHODS: We used Wave 1 data (May to June 2021) from CalScope, a population-based seroprevalence study in California. Occupation data were coded using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System. Dried blood spot specimens were tested for antibodies to establish evidence of prior infection. We estimated the causal effect of in-person work on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk using the g-formula and describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence across occupation-related factors. RESULTS: Among 4335 working adults, 53% worked in person. In-person work was associated with increased risk of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk difference: 0.03; [95% CI: 0.02-0.04]) compared with working remotely. Workers that reported job loss or who were without medical insurance had higher evidence of prior infection. Amongst in-person workers, evidence of prior infection was highest within farming, fishing, and forestry (55%; [95% CI: 26%-81%]); installation, maintenance, and repair (23%; [12%-39%]); building and grounds cleaning and maintenance (23%; [13%-36%]); food preparation and serving related (22% [13%-35%]); and healthcare support (22%; [13%-34%]) occupations. Workers who identified as Latino, reported a household income of <$25K, or who were without a bachelor's degree also had higher evidence of prior infection. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection risk varies by occupation. Future vaccination strategies may consider prioritizing in-person workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Industry , Agriculture , Health Personnel
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(33): 1052-1056, 2022 Aug 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1994636

ABSTRACT

Work-related factors can contribute to risk for exposure to and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and subsequent COVID-19-attributable outcomes, including death. Comparing COVID-19 metrics across industries can help identify workers at highest risk. Elevated COVID-19 mortality rates have been reported among all transportation workers, as well as specifically in public transportation industries (1-3). The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) calculated public transportation industry-specific COVID-19 outbreak incidence during January 2020-May 2022 and analyzed all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths among working-age adults in California to calculate public transportation industry-specific mortality rates during the same period. Overall, 340 confirmed COVID-19 outbreaks, 5,641 outbreak-associated cases, and 537 COVID-19-associated deaths were identified among California public transportation industries. Outbreak incidence was 5.2 times as high (129.1 outbreaks per 1,000 establishments) in the bus and urban transit industry and 3.6 times as high in the air transportation industry (87.7) as in all California industries combined (24.7). Mortality rates were 2.1 times as high (237.4 deaths per 100,000 workers) in transportation support services and 1.8 times as high (211.5) in the bus and urban transit industry as in all industries combined (114.4). Workers in public transportation industries are at higher risk for COVID-19 workplace outbreaks and mortality than the general worker population in California and should be prioritized for COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination and enhanced workplace protection measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , California/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Industry , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac246, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1948420

ABSTRACT

Background: Understanding the distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies from vaccination and/or prior infection is critical to the public health response to the pandemic. CalScope is a population-based serosurvey in 7 counties in California. Methods: We invited 200 000 randomly sampled households to enroll up to 1 adult and 1 child between April 20, 2021 and June 16, 2021. We tested all specimens for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins, and each participant completed an online survey. We classified participants into categories: seronegative, antibodies from infection only, antibodies from infection and vaccination, and antibodies from vaccination only. Results: A total of 11 161 households enrolled (5.6%), with 7483 adults and 1375 children completing antibody testing. As of June 2021, 33% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28%-37%) of adults and 57% (95% CI, 48%-66%) of children were seronegative; 18% (95% CI, 14%-22%) of adults and 26% (95% CI, 19%-32%) of children had antibodies from infection alone; 9% (95% CI, 6%-11%) of adults and 5% (95% CI, 1%-8%) of children had antibodies from infection and vaccination; and 41% (95% CI, 37%-45%) of adults and 13% (95% CI, 7%-18%) of children had antibodies from vaccination alone. Conclusions: As of June 2021, one third of adults and most children in California were seronegative. Serostatus varied regionally and by demographic group.

9.
American Journal of Public Health ; 112(8):1180-1190, 2022.
Article in English | CINAHL | ID: covidwho-1940013

ABSTRACT

Objectives. To describe which industries have the highest burden of COVID-19 outbreaks in California. Methods. We assigned US census industry codes to COVID-19 outbreaks reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021, and determined numbers of outbreaks, numbers of outbreak-associated cases, and outbreak incidence levels by industry. We determined characteristics of outbreak-associated cases using individual case data linked to COVID-19 outbreaks. Results. Local health departments reported 19 893 COVID-19 outbreaks and 300 379 outbreak-associated cases to CDPH. The most outbreaks (47.8%) and outbreak-associated cases (54.8%) occurred in the health care and social assistance sector, where outbreak incidence levels were highest in skilled nursing facilities and residential care facilities (1306 and 544 outbreaks per 1000 establishments, respectively). High proportions of outbreaks also occurred in the retail trade (8.6%) and manufacturing (7.9%) sectors. Demographics of outbreak-associated cases varied across industries. Conclusions. Certain California industries, particularly in the health care, manufacturing, and retail sectors, have experienced a high burden of COVID-19 outbreaks during the pandemic. Public Health Implications. Tracking COVID-19 outbreaks by industry may help target prevention efforts, including workforce vaccination. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(8):1180–1190. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306862)

10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e122-e132, 2022 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1883003

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Spring 2021, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.7 (Alpha) became the predominant variant in the United States. Research suggests that Alpha has increased transmissibility compared with non-Alpha lineages. We estimated household secondary infection risk (SIR), assessed characteristics associated with transmission, and compared symptoms of persons with Alpha and non-Alpha infections. METHODS: We followed households with SARS-CoV-2 infection for 2 weeks in San Diego County and metropolitan Denver, January to April 2021. We collected epidemiologic information and biospecimens for serology, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and whole-genome sequencing. We stratified SIR and symptoms by lineage and identified characteristics associated with transmission using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: We investigated 127 households with 322 household contacts; 72 households (56.7%) had member(s) with secondary infections. SIRs were not significantly higher for Alpha (61.0% [95% confidence interval, 52.4-69.0%]) than non-Alpha (55.6% [44.7-65.9%], P = .49). In households with Alpha, persons who identified as Asian or Hispanic/Latino had significantly higher SIRs than those who identified as White (P = .01 and .03, respectively). Close contact (eg, kissing, hugging) with primary cases was associated with increased transmission for all lineages. Persons with Alpha infection were more likely to report constitutional symptoms than persons with non-Alpha (86.9% vs 76.8%, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Household SIRs were similar for Alpha and non-Alpha. Comparable SIRs may be due to saturation of transmission risk in households due to extensive close contact, or true lack of difference in transmission rates. Avoiding close contact within households may reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission for all lineages among household members.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , United States/epidemiology
11.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1864007

ABSTRACT

Background Understanding the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from vaccination and/or prior infection is critical to the public health response to the pandemic. CalScope is a population-based serosurvey in 7 counties in California. Methods We invited 200,000 randomly sampled households to enroll up to 1 adult and 1 child between April 20, 2021 and June 16, 2021. We tested all specimen for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins, and each participant completed an online survey. We classified participants into categories: seronegative, antibodies from infection only, antibodies from infection and vaccination, and antibodies from vaccination only. Results 11,161 households enrolled (5.6%), with 7,483 adults and 1,375 children completing antibody testing. As of June 2021, 33% (95%CI [28%, 37%]) of adults and 57% (95%CI[48%, 66%]) of children were seronegative;18% (95%CI[14%, 22%]) of adults and 26% (95%CI[19%, 32%]) of children had antibodies from infection alone;9% (95%CI[6%,11%]) of adults and 5% (95%CI[1%, 8%]) of children had antibodies from infection and vaccination;and 41% (95%CI[37%, 45%]) of adults and 13% (95%CI [7%, 18%]) of children had antibodies from vaccination alone. Conclusions As of June 2021, a third of adults and most children in California were seronegative. Serostatus varied regionally and by demographic group.

12.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0266058, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765542

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Information on U.S. COVID-19 mortality rates by occupation is limited. We aimed to characterize 2020 COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians to inform preventive strategies. METHODS: We identified laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 fatalities with dates of death in 2020 by matching death certificates to the state's COVID-19 case registry. Working status for decedents aged 18-64 years was determined from state employment records, death certificates, and case registry data and classified as "confirmed working," "likely working," or "not working." We calculated age-adjusted overall and occupation-specific COVID-19 mortality rates using 2019 American Community Survey denominators. RESULTS: COVID-19 accounted for 8,050 (9.9%) of 81,468 fatalities among Californians 18-64 years old. Of these decedents, 2,486 (30.9%) were matched to state employment records and classified as "confirmed working." The remainder were classified as "likely working" (n = 4,121 [51.2%]) or "not working" (n = 1,443 [17.9%]) using death certificate and case registry data. Confirmed and likely working COVID-19 decedents were predominantly male (76.3%), Latino (68.7%), and foreign-born (59.6%), with high school or less education (67.9%); 7.8% were Black. The overall age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate was 30.0 per 100,000 workers (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3-30.8). Workers in nine occupational groups had age-adjusted mortality rates higher than this overall rate, including those in farming (78.0; 95% CI, 68.7-88.2); material moving (77.8; 95% CI, 70.2-85.9); construction (62.4; 95% CI, 57.7-67.4); production (60.2; 95% CI, 55.7-65.0); and transportation (57.2; 95% CI, 52.2-62.5) occupations. While occupational differences in mortality were evident across demographic groups, mortality rates were three-fold higher for male compared with female workers and three- to seven-fold higher for Latino and Black workers compared with Asian and White workers. CONCLUSION: Californians in manual labor and in-person service occupations experienced disproportionate COVID-19 mortality, with the highest rates observed among male, Latino, and Black workers; these occupational group should be prioritized for prevention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Educational Status , Employment , Female , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupations , Young Adult
13.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(8): 1382-1389, 2022 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709236

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Estimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions, and understanding of barriers to uptake, are necessary to inform vaccine rollout. METHODS: We enrolled cases (testing positive) and controls (testing negative) from among the population whose SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test results from 24 February to 29 April 2021 were reported to the California Department of Public Health. Participants were matched on age, sex, and geographic region. We assessed participants' self-reported history of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine receipt (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Participants were considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after second dose receipt. Among unvaccinated participants, we assessed willingness to receive vaccination. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) via the matched odds ratio of prior vaccination, comparing cases with controls. RESULTS: We enrolled 1023 eligible participants aged ≥18 years. Among 525 cases, 71 (13.5%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 20 (3.8%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Among 498 controls, 185 (37.1%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 86 (16.3%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Two weeks after second dose receipt, VE was 87.0% (95% confidence interval: 68.6-94.6%) and 86.2% (68.4-93.9%) for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Fully vaccinated participants receiving either product experienced 91.3% (79.3-96.3%) and 68.3% (27.9-85.7%) VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, respectively. Among unvaccinated participants, 42.4% (159/375) residing in rural regions and 23.8% (67/281) residing in urban regions reported hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA-based vaccines are effective at reducing documented SARS-CoV-2 infections within the general population of California. Vaccine hesitancy presents a barrier to reaching coverage levels needed for herd immunity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , California/epidemiology , Humans , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , mRNA Vaccines
14.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e276-e288, 2022 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709235

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing. RESULTS: 751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact. CONCLUSIONS: NPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
15.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(6): 212-216, 2022 Feb 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1687589

ABSTRACT

The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4). A test-negative design case-control study enrolled randomly selected California residents who had received a test result for SARS-CoV-2 during February 18-December 1, 2021. Face mask or respirator use was assessed among 652 case-participants (residents who had received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2) and 1,176 matched control-participants (residents who had received negative test results for SARS-CoV-2) who self-reported being in indoor public settings during the 2 weeks preceding testing and who reported no known contact with anyone with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time. Always using a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with never wearing a face mask or respirator in these settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.24-0.82). Among 534 participants who specified the type of face covering they typically used, wearing N95/KN95 respirators (aOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.64) or surgical masks (aOR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.90) was associated with significantly lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with not wearing any face mask or respirator. These findings reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using a respirator offers the highest level of personal protection against acquiring infection, although it is most important to wear a mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Masks , N95 Respirators , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , California/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
16.
Natl Med J India ; 34(4): 238-239, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1675559

ABSTRACT

It is well-documented that during a war, a natural disaster or a pandemic, women bear the worse brunt of the crisis. Worldwide, mental stress, domestic violence and cybercrime against women are widespread and under-reported during Covid-19. Creating boundaries in such situations is extremely important. It is imperative that policy-makers adopt a gender perspective to understand and analyse the effects of the pandemic and the lockdown on the economy, livelihoods and social structures. United Nations has called for urgent action and for governments to put women's safety first as they respond to the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Domestic Violence , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(1): 9-19, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581410

ABSTRACT

State and local health departments established the California Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance System to conduct enhanced surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens at sentinel outpatient testing sites in 10 counties throughout California, USA. We describe results obtained during May 10, 2020‒June 12, 2021, and compare persons with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results by using Poisson regression. We detected SARS-CoV-2 in 1,696 (19.6%) of 8,662 specimens. Among 7,851 specimens tested by respiratory panel, rhinovirus/enterovirus was detected in 906 (11.5%) specimens and other respiratory pathogens in 136 (1.7%) specimens. We also detected 23 co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and another pathogen. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with male participants, an age of 35-49 years, Latino race/ethnicity, obesity, and work in transportation occupations. Sentinel surveillance can provide useful virologic and epidemiologic data to supplement other disease monitoring activities and might become increasingly useful as routine testing decreases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Sentinel Surveillance
18.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2136853, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1549152

ABSTRACT

Importance: Tuberculosis (TB) and COVID-19 are respiratory diseases that disproportionately occur among medically underserved populations; little is known about their epidemiologic intersection. Objective: To characterize persons diagnosed with TB and COVID-19 in California. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of population-based public health surveillance data assessed the sociodemographic, clinical, and epidemiologic characteristics of California residents who were diagnosed with TB (including cases diagnosed and reported between September 3, 2019, and December 31, 2020) and COVID-19 (including confirmed cases based on positive results on polymerase chain reaction tests and probable cases based on positive results on antigen assays reported through February 2, 2021) in close succession compared with those who were diagnosed with TB before the COVID-19 pandemic (between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019) or diagnosed with COVID-19 alone (through February 2, 2021). This analysis included 3 402 713 California residents with COVID-19 alone, 6280 with TB before the pandemic, and 91 with confirmed or probable COVID-19 diagnosed within 120 days of a TB diagnosis (ie, TB/COVID-19). Exposures: Sociodemographic characteristics, medical risk factors, factors associated with TB severity, and health equity index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency of reported successive TB and COVID-19 (TB/COVID-19) diagnoses within 120 days, frequency of deaths, and age-adjusted mortality rates. Results: Among the 91 persons with TB/COVID-19, the median age was 58.0 years (range, 3.0-95.0 years; IQR, 41.0-73.0 years); 52 persons (57.1%) were male; 81 (89.0%) were born outside the US; and 28 (30.8%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 4 (4.4%) were Black, 55 (60.4%) were Hispanic or Latino, 4 (4.4%) were White. The frequency of reported COVID-19 among those who received a TB diagnosis between September 3, 2019, and December 31, 2020, was 225 of 2210 persons (10.2%), which was similar to that of the general population (3 402 804 of 39 538 223 persons [8.6%]). Compared with persons with TB before the pandemic, those with TB/COVID-19 were more likely to be Hispanic or Latino (2285 of 6279 persons [36.4%; 95% CI, 35.2%-37.6%] vs 55 of 91 persons [60.4%; 95% CI, 49.6%-70.5%], respectively; P < .001), reside in low health equity census tracts (1984 of 6027 persons [32.9%; 95% CI, 31.7%-34.1%] vs 40 of 89 persons [44.9%; 95% CI, 34.4%-55.9%]; P = .003), live in the US longer before receiving a TB diagnosis (median, 19.7 years [IQR, 7.2-32.3 years] vs 23.1 years [IQR, 15.2-31.5 years]; P = .03), and have diabetes (1734 of 6280 persons [27.6%; 95% CI, 26.5%-28.7%] vs 42 of 91 persons [46.2%; 95% CI, 35.6%-56.9%]; P < .001). The frequency of deaths among those with TB/COVID-19 successively diagnosed within 30 days (8 of 34 persons [23.5%; 95% CI, 10.8%-41.2%]) was more than twice that of persons with TB before the pandemic (631 of 5545 persons [11.4%; 95% CI, 10.6%-12.2%]; P = .05) and 20 times that of persons with COVID-19 alone (42 171 of 3 402 713 persons [1.2%; 95% CI, 1.2%-1.3%]; P < .001). Persons with TB/COVID-19 who died were older (median, 81.0 years; IQR, 75.0-85.0 years) than those who survived (median, 54.0 years; IQR, 37.5-68.5 years; P < .001). The age-adjusted mortality rate remained higher among persons with TB/COVID-19 (74.2 deaths per 1000 persons; 95% CI, 26.2-122.1 deaths per 1000 persons) compared with either disease alone (TB before the pandemic: 56.3 deaths per 1000 persons [95% CI, 51.2-61.4 deaths per 1000 persons]; COVID-19 only: 17.1 deaths per 1000 persons [95% CI, 16.9-17.2 deaths per 1000 persons]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis, TB/COVID-19 was disproportionately diagnosed among California residents who were Hispanic or Latino, had diabetes, or were living in low health equity census tracts. These results suggest that tuberculosis and COVID-19 occurring together may be associated with increases in mortality compared with either disease alone, especially among older adults. Addressing health inequities and integrating prevention efforts could avert the occurrence of concurrent COVID-19 and TB and potentially reduce deaths.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Comorbidity , Mortality/trends , Sociodemographic Factors , Time Factors , Tuberculosis/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , California/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Middle Aged , Tuberculosis/epidemiology , Tuberculosis/mortality
19.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(8): ofab379, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526178

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: California has reported the largest number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases of any US state, with more than 3.5 million confirmed as of March 2021. However, the full breadth of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in California is unknown as reported cases only represent a fraction of all infections. METHODS: We conducted a population-based serosurvey, utilizing mailed, home-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing along with a demographic and behavioral survey. We weighted data from a random sample to represent the adult California population and estimated period seroprevalence overall and by participant characteristics. Seroprevalence estimates were adjusted for waning antibodies to produce statewide estimates of cumulative incidence, the infection fatality ratio (IFR), and the reported fraction. RESULTS: California's SARS-CoV-2 weighted seroprevalence during August-December 2020 was 4.6% (95% CI, 2.8%-7.4%). Estimated cumulative incidence as of November 2, 2020, was 8.7% (95% CrI, 6.4%-11.5%), indicating that 2 660 441 adults (95% CrI, 1 959 218-3 532 380) had been infected. The estimated IFR was 0.8% (95% CrI, 0.6%-1.0%), and the estimated percentage of infections reported to the California Department of Public Health was 31%. Disparately high risk for infection was observed among persons of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and people with no health insurance and who reported working outside the home. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first statewide SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence estimate among adults in California. As of November 2020, ~1 in 3 SARS-CoV-2 infections in California adults had been identified by public health surveillance. When accounting for unreported SARS-CoV-2 infections, disparities by race/ethnicity seen in case-based surveillance persist.

20.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(11): 2923-2926, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504649

ABSTRACT

During September 1, 2020-April 30, 2021, the California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA, received 255 positive influenza molecular test results that matched with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 molecular test results; 58 (23%) persons were co-infected. Influenza activity was minimal in California, and co-infections were sporadic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Influenza, Human , Coinfection/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL