Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(9): 1559-1566, 2023 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2311083

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Text Messaging , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Acad Emerg Med ; 30(6): 636-643, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2285413

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The delivery and financing of health care services were altered in unprecedented ways by COVID-19 and subsequent policy responses. We estimated reimbursement losses to emergency physicians in 2020 compared to 2019 related to shifting acute care utilization during COVID-19. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of the Clinical Emergency Department Registry (CEDR) and the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). Study sample included all ED visits from a sample of 214 emergency department (ED) sites in the CEDR in 2019 and 2020 as well as all ED visits in the NEDS in 2019. We identified level of service billing code for evaluation and management (E&M) services, insurance payer, and geographic location of ED visits across sites in the CEDR and linked these to fee schedules to estimate total professional reimbursement across sites. Our primary analysis was to estimate reimbursement in 2020 compared to 2019 across the CEDR sites. In our secondary analysis, we linked sites in the CEDR to those in NEDS to estimate nationwide reimbursement. RESULTS: Total E&M reimbursement for emergency physicians in the CEDR was $1.6 billion in 2019 and $1.3 billion in 2020, reflecting a 19.7% decline year over year ($308 million loss). In our secondary analysis, we estimate nationwide losses of $6.6 billion, a -19.4% decline year over year. If emergency physicians had received maximum allowable federal relief funds via CARES Act Phases 1 to 3 (2% of 2019 revenue) this would sum to $680 million (2% of the $34 billion) or 10.3% of the estimated $6.6 billion pandemic-related losses. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses provide an estimate of the scale of economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings warrant consideration for policymaker relief and future redesign of emergency care financing. Ultimately, the COVID-19 pandemic likely expanded known cracks in the financing of health care into steep fault lines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Physicians , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(33): 1114-1119, 2021 Aug 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365865

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NH/PI) populations in the United States. These populations have experienced higher rates of infection and mortality compared with the non-Hispanic White (White) population (1-5) and greater excess mortality (i.e., the percentage increase in the number of persons who have died relative to the expected number of deaths for a given place and time) (6). A limitation of existing research on excess mortality among racial/ethnic minority groups has been the lack of adjustment for age and population change over time. This study assessed excess mortality incidence rates (IRs) (e.g., the number of excess deaths per 100,000 person-years) in the United States during December 29, 2019-January 2, 2021, by race/ethnicity and age group using data from the National Vital Statistics System. Among all assessed racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic Asian [Asian], AI/AN, Black, Hispanic, NH/PI, and White populations), excess mortality IRs were higher among persons aged ≥65 years (426.4 to 1033.5 excess deaths per 100,000 person-years) than among those aged 25-64 years (30.2 to 221.1) and those aged <25 years (-2.9 to 14.1). Among persons aged <65 years, Black and AI/AN populations had the highest excess mortality IRs. Among adults aged ≥65 years, Black and Hispanic persons experienced the highest excess mortality IRs of >1,000 excess deaths per 100,000 person-years. These findings could help guide more tailored public health messaging and mitigation efforts to reduce disparities in mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States,* by identifying the racial/ethnic groups and age groups with the highest excess mortality rates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Health Status Disparities , Mortality/trends , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , COVID-19/ethnology , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Middle Aged , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
Am J Med ; 134(6): 812-816.e2, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1131046

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Infection fatality rate and infection hospitalization rate, defined as the proportion of deaths and hospitalizations, respectively, of the total infected individuals, can estimate the actual toll of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on a community, as the denominator is ideally based on a representative sample of a population, which captures the full spectrum of illness, including asymptomatic and untested individuals. OBJECTIVE: To determine the COVID-19 infection hospitalization rate and infection fatality rate among the non-congregate population in Connecticut between March 1 and June 1, 2020. METHODS: The infection hospitalization rate and infection fatality rate were calculated for adults residing in non-congregate settings in Connecticut prior to June 2020. Individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies were estimated using the seroprevalence estimates from the recently conducted Post-Infection Prevalence study. Information on total hospitalizations and deaths was obtained from the Connecticut Hospital Association and the Connecticut Department of Public Health, respectively. RESULTS: Prior to June 1, 2020, nearly 113,515 (90% confidence interval [CI] 56,758-170,273) individuals were estimated to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and there were 7792 hospitalizations and 1079 deaths among the non-congregate population. The overall COVID-19 infection hospitalization rate and infection fatality rate were estimated to be 6.86% (90% CI, 4.58%-13.72%) and 0.95% (90% CI, 0.63%-1.90%), respectively, and there was variation in these rate estimates across subgroups; older people, men, non-Hispanic Black people, and those belonging to 2 of the counties had a higher burden of adverse outcomes, although the differences between most subgroups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Using representative seroprevalence estimates, the overall COVID-19 infection hospitalization rate and infection fatality rate were estimated to be 6.86% and 0.95%, respectively, among community residents in Connecticut.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Disease Transmission, Infectious , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , Carrier State/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Connecticut/epidemiology , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Seroepidemiologic Studies
8.
Am J Med ; 134(4): 526-534.e11, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893429

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A seroprevalence study can estimate the percentage of people with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in the general population; however, most existing reports have used a convenience sample, which may bias their estimates. METHODS: We sought a representative sample of Connecticut residents, ages ≥18 years and residing in noncongregate settings, who completed a survey between June 4 and June 23, 2020, and underwent serology testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies between June 10 and July 29, 2020. We also oversampled non-Hispanic black and Hispanic subpopulations. We estimated the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies and the prevalence of symptomatic illness and self-reported adherence to risk-mitigation behaviors among this population. RESULTS: Of the 567 respondents (mean age 50 [± 17] years; 53% women; 75% non-Hispanic white individuals) included at the state level, 23 respondents tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, resulting in weighted seroprevalence of 4.0 (90% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-6.0). The weighted seroprevalence for the oversampled non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations was 6.4% (90% CI 0.9-11.9) and 19.9% (90% CI 13.2-26.6), respectively. The majority of respondents at the state level reported following risk-mitigation behaviors: 73% avoided public places, 75% avoided gatherings of families or friends, and 97% wore a facemask, at least part of the time. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates indicate that the vast majority of people in Connecticut lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and there is variation by race and ethnicity. There is a need for continued adherence to risk-mitigation behaviors among Connecticut residents to prevent resurgence of COVID-19 in this region.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Risk Reduction Behavior , Attitude to Health/ethnology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , Connecticut/epidemiology , Ethnicity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Needs Assessment , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroepidemiologic Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL