Addressing the Need for Accountability in Public Health

The article calls for the public health community to examine who deter the issuance of deficiently supported recommendations by holding accountable public health officials who promote such recommendations. Topics discussed include advice public health advice that contradicts prevailing scientific evidence, mechanisms for accountability, and the need for self-regulation.

Application of Phylodynamic Tools to Inform the Public Health Response to COVID-19: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Opinions.

BACKGROUND: In the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, scientists have scrambled to collect and analyze SARS-CoV-2 genomic data to inform public health responses to COVID-19 in real time. Open source phylogenetic and data visualization platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology have rapidly gained popularity for their ability to illuminate spatial-temporal transmission patterns worldwide. However, the utility of such tools to inform public health decision-making for COVID-19 in real time remains to be explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to convene experts in public health, infectious diseases, virology, and bioinformatics-many of whom were actively engaged in the COVID-19 response-to discuss and report on the application of phylodynamic tools to inform pandemic responses. METHODS: In total, 4 focus groups (FGs) occurred between June 2020 and June 2021, covering both the pre- and postvariant strain emergence and vaccination eras of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Participants included national and international academic and government researchers, clinicians, public health practitioners, and other stakeholders recruited through purposive and convenience sampling by the study team. Open-ended questions were developed to prompt discussion. FGs I and II concentrated on phylodynamics for the public health practitioner, while FGs III and IV discussed the methodological nuances of phylodynamic inference. Two FGs per topic area to increase data saturation. An iterative, thematic qualitative framework was used for data analysis. RESULTS: We invited 41 experts to the FGs, and 23 (56%) agreed to participate. Across all the FG sessions, 15 (65%) of the participants were female, 17 (74%) were White, and 5 (22%) were Black. Participants were described as molecular epidemiologists (MEs; n=9, 39%), clinician-researchers (n=3, 13%), infectious disease experts (IDs; n=4, 17%), and public health professionals at the local (PHs; n=4, 17%), state (n=2, 9%), and federal (n=1, 4%) levels. They represented multiple countries in Europe, the United States, and the Caribbean. Nine major themes arose from the discussions: (1) translational/implementation science, (2) precision public health, (3) fundamental unknowns, (4) proper scientific communication, (5) methods of epidemiological investigation, (6) sampling bias, (7) interoperability standards, (8) academic/public health partnerships, and (9) resources. Collectively, participants felt that successful uptake of phylodynamic tools to inform the public health response relies on the strength of academic and public health partnerships. They called for interoperability standards in sequence data sharing, urged careful reporting to prevent misinterpretations, imagined that public health responses could be tailored to specific variants, and cited resource issues that would need to be addressed by policy makers in future outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to detail the viewpoints of public health practitioners and molecular epidemiology experts on the use of viral genomic data to inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data gathered during this study provide important information from experts to help streamline the functionality and use of phylodynamic tools for pandemic responses.

COVID-19 and Pregnancy.

Pregnancy seems to be a risk factor for severe disease with COVID-19. Although SARS-CoV-2 intrauterine transmission seems to be rare, most studies show COVID-19 during pregnancy increases the risk for pregnancy complications, with higher risk among those with severe disease compared with those mildly affected. Studies suggest that COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in umbilical cord blood and breast milk following maternal vaccination, which might provide protection to the infant. However, vaccination rates during pregnancy remain low. Studies are needed to understand ways to address SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant persons.

An update on teratogens for pediatric healthcare providers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review updates regarding teratogens and give pediatric healthcare providers insight into the prevention of teratogenic exposures. RECENT FINDINGS: Application of the principles of teratology can help to assess the potential for exposures to be teratogenic. Identification of Zika virus as a teratogen, the most recent teratogenic agent identified, allowed public health measures to be put in place to mitigate its spread. Risk management strategies for teratogenic medications have resulted in a decrease but often not elimination of prenatal exposures. The failure to include pregnant persons in clinical trials results in their being less likely to receive needed medications and vaccines in a timely manner. SUMMARY: Pediatricians play an important role in the prevention of teratogenic exposures. Ensuring optimal management of patients with chronic illnesses that might increase their risk of birth defects during pregnancy due to the illness itself or its treatment is essential. For patients with pregnancy potential who are on teratogenic medications, ensuring effective contraception is also important. Inclusion of pregnant persons in clinical trials and research studies will be critical to advancing our knowledge of the safety of medications and other exposures during pregnancy.

Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

Pregnancy is an independent risk factor for severe covid-19. Vaccination is the best way to reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and limit its morbidity and mortality. The current recommendations from the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and professional organizations are for pregnant, postpartum, and lactating women to receive covid-19 vaccination. Pregnancy specific considerations involve potential effects of vaccination on fetal development, placental transfer of antibodies, and safety of maternal vaccination. Although pregnancy was an exclusion criterion in initial clinical trials of covid-19 vaccines, observational data have been rapidly accumulating and thus far confirm that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks. This review examines the evidence supporting the effectiveness, immunogenicity, placental transfer, side effects, and perinatal outcomes of maternal covid-19 vaccination. Additionally, it describes factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy. Overall, studies monitoring people who have received covid-19 vaccines during pregnancy have not identified any pregnancy specific safety concerns. Additional information on non-mRNA vaccines, vaccination early in pregnancy, and longer term outcomes in infants are needed. To collect this information, vaccination during pregnancy must be prioritized in vaccine research.

First trimester COVID-19 and the risk of major congenital malformations-International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy.

There is limited information about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the first trimester of pregnancy on the risk of major congenital malformations (MCMs). The International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy (IRCEP) was designed to estimate the relative risk of adverse perinatal outcomes among women with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) at specific times during gestation. Adult women were eligible to enroll if they had a SARS-CoV-2 test, regardless of the results, or clinically confirmed COVID-19 during pregnancy. Self-administered questionnaires collected data on SARS-CoV-2 infection, pregnancy outcomes (including detailed questions on MCMs), and potential confounders. The analysis of MCMs includes women with either a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test or a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first trimester (exposed group) or a negative SARS-CoV-2 test (reference) that enrolled while pregnant. Sensitivity analyses were restricted to participants who enrolled before the availability of informative prenatal screening tests and extended to those enrolled after end of pregnancy. Generalized linear models were used to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of 17,163 participants enrolled between June 2020 and July 2021, 1727 had a SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first trimester, of whom 1,675 enrolled during pregnancy. Of 10,235 controls with a negative test during pregnancy, 4,172 enrolled during pregnancy. Restriction to participants with complete follow-up reduced the sample size to 92 exposed and 292 unexposed reference pregnancies. MCMs were reported in 3 (3.3%) exposed and 8 (2.7%) unexposed (RR 1.2; 95% CI 0.32-4.2) newborns. The RR was 2.5 (95%CI 0.23-27) among those enrolled before prenatal screening, and 2.2 (95%CI 0.89-5.3) in the overall study population including those enrolled post-pregnancy. No specific pattern of malformations was observed. Although results are compatible with no major teratogenic effects associated with maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, RR estimates were imprecise and larger studies are warranted.

International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy (IRCEP): Cohort Description and Methodological Considerations.

Limited data are available about the potential health effects of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on pregnant women and their developing offspring. We established the International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy (IRCEP) to provide data on the risk of major adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes among women with varying degrees of severity and timing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during pregnancy. We describe here the cohort and share the lessons learned. The IRCEP enrolls women tested for SARS-CoV-2 or with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 during pregnancy and obtains information using an online data collection system. By March 2021, 17,532 participants from 77 countries had enrolled; 54% enrolled during pregnancy and 46% afterward. Among women with symptomatic COVID-19 with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (n = 4,934), symptoms were mild in 41%, moderate in 52%, and severe in 7%; 7.7% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 1.7% were admitted to an intensive care unit. The biggest challenges were retention of participants enrolled during pregnancy and the potential bias introduced when participants enroll after pregnancy outcomes are known. Multiple biases need to be considered and addressed when estimating and interpreting the effects of COVID-19 in pregnancy in these types of cohorts.

Prevalence of Select New Symptoms and Conditions Among Persons Aged Younger Than 20 Years and 20 Years or Older at 31 to 150 Days After Testing Positive or Negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Importance: New symptoms and conditions can develop following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whether they occur more frequently among persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with those without is unclear. Objective: To compare the prevalence of new diagnoses of select symptoms and conditions between 31 and 150 days after testing among persons who tested positive vs negative for SARS-CoV-2. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed aggregated electronic health record data from 40 health care systems, including 338 024 persons younger than 20 years and 1 790 886 persons aged 20 years or older who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during March to December 2020 and who had medical encounters between 31 and 150 days after testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to capture new symptoms and conditions that were recorded 31 to 150 days after a SARS-CoV-2 test but absent in the 18 months to 7 days prior to testing. The prevalence of new symptoms and conditions was compared between persons with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 tests stratified by age (20 years or older and young than 20 years) and care setting (nonhospitalized, hospitalized, or hospitalized and ventilated). Results: A total of 168 701 persons aged 20 years or older and 26 665 younger than 20 years tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1 622 185 persons aged 20 years or older and 311 359 younger than 20 years tested negative. Shortness of breath was more common among persons with a positive vs negative test result among hospitalized patients (≥20 years: prevalence ratio [PR], 1.89 [99% CI, 1.79-2.01]; <20 years: PR, 1.72 [99% CI, 1.17-2.51]). Shortness of breath was also more common among nonhospitalized patients aged 20 years or older with a positive vs negative test result (PR, 1.09 [99% CI, 1.05-1.13]). Among hospitalized persons aged 20 years or older, the prevalence of new fatigue (PR, 1.35 [99% CI, 1.27-1.44]) and type 2 diabetes (PR, 2.03 [99% CI, 1.87-2.19]) was higher among those with a positive vs a negative test result. Among hospitalized persons younger than 20 years, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (PR, 2.14 [99% CI, 1.13-4.06]) was higher among those with a positive vs a negative test result; however, the prevalence difference was less than 1%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, among persons hospitalized after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, diagnoses of certain symptoms and conditions were higher than among those with a negative test result. Health care professionals should be aware of symptoms and conditions that may develop after SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly among those hospitalized after diagnosis.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Receipt of Medications for Treatment of COVID-19 - United States, March 2020-August 2021.

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified longstanding health care and social inequities, resulting in disproportionately high COVID-19-associated illness and death among members of racial and ethnic minority groups (1). Equitable use of effective medications (2) could reduce disparities in these severe outcomes (3). Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, initially received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2020. mAbs are typically administered in an outpatient setting via intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection and can prevent progression of COVID-19 if given after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result or for postexposure prophylaxis in patients at high risk for severe illness.† Dexamethasone, a commonly used steroid, and remdesivir, an antiviral drug that received EUA from FDA in May 2020, are used in inpatient settings and help prevent COVID-19 progression§ (2). No large-scale studies have yet examined the use of mAb by race and ethnicity. Using COVID-19 patient electronic health record data from 41 U.S. health care systems that participated in the PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network,¶ this study assessed receipt of medications for COVID-19 treatment by race (White, Black, Asian, and Other races [including American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiple or Other races]) and ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic). Relative disparities in mAb** treatment among all patients†† (805,276) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and in dexamethasone and remdesivir treatment among inpatients§§ (120,204) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were calculated. Among all patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, the overall use of mAb was infrequent, with mean monthly use at 4% or less for all racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic patients received mAb 58% less often than did non-Hispanic patients, and Black, Asian, or Other race patients received mAb 22%, 48%, and 47% less often, respectively, than did White patients during November 2020-August 2021. Among inpatients, disparities were different and of lesser magnitude: Hispanic inpatients received dexamethasone 6% less often than did non-Hispanic inpatients, and Black inpatients received remdesivir 9% more often than did White inpatients. Vaccines and preventive measures are the best defense against infection; use of COVID-19 medications postexposure or postinfection can reduce morbidity and mortality and relieve strain on hospitals but are not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination. Public health policies and programs centered around the specific needs of communities can promote health equity (4). Equitable receipt of outpatient treatments, such as mAb and antiviral medications, and implementation of prevention practices are essential to reducing existing racial and ethnic inequities in severe COVID-19-associated illness and death.

An update on COVID-19 and pregnancy.

Physiological, mechanical, and immunologic alterations in pregnancy could potentially affect the susceptibility to and the severity of COVID-19 during pregnancy. Owing to the lack of comparable incidence data and the challenges with disentangling differences in the susceptibility from different exposure risks, the data are insufficient to determine whether pregnancy increases the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data support pregnancy as a risk factor for severe disease associated with COVID-19; some of the best evidence comes from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 surveillance system, which reported that pregnant persons were more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit, require invasive ventilation, require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and die than nonpregnant women of reproductive age. Although the intrauterine transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been documented, it appears to be rare. It is possibly related to low levels of SARS-CoV-2 viremia and the decreased coexpression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 needed for SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells in the placenta. Evidence is accumulating that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a number of adverse pregnancy outcomes including preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth, especially among pregnant persons with severe COVID-19 disease. In addition to the direct impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes, there is evidence that the pandemic and its effects on healthcare systems have had adverse effects such as increased stillbirths and maternal deaths on the pregnancy outcomes. These trends may represent widening disparities and an alarming reversal of recent improvements in maternal and infant health. All the 3 COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States can be administered to pregnant or lactating persons, with no preference for the vaccine type. Although the safety data in pregnancy are rapidly accumulating and no safety signals in pregnancy have been detected, additional information about the birth outcomes, particularly among persons vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, are needed.

The influence of selection bias on identifying an association between allergy medication use and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Medications to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2 infection are needed to complement emerging vaccinations. Recent in vitro and electronic health record (EHR) studies suggested that certain allergy medications could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to carefully examine the potential selection bias associated with utilizing EHRs in these settings. METHODS: We analyzed associations of three allergy medications (cetirizine, diphenhydramine or hydroxyzine) with testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, measuring the potential effect of selection bias on these associations. We used a retrospective cohort of EHR data from 230,376 patients (18 years+) who visited outpatient clinicians in a single, large academic center at least once but were never hospitalized (10/1/2019-6/1/2020). Main exposures included EHR documentation of three allergy medications and allergy, with an intermediate outcome of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test, and the primary outcome as testing negative. FINDINGS: SARS-CoV-2 testing rates varied by sex, age, race/ethnicity and insurance. Increasing age and public insurance were associated with a higher adjusted odds of test negativity, while being Black or Hispanic was significantly associated with test positivity. Allergy diagnosis and use of any of three allergy medications were each associated with a higher likelihood of receiving a test (e.g. diphenhydramine - Odds Ratio (OR) 2.99, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.73, 3.28; cetirizine 1.75 (95% CI 1.60, 1.92)). Among those tested, only use of diphenhydramine was associated with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test (adjusted OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.10, 4.55). However, analyses revealed that selection bias may be responsible for the apparent protective effect of diphenhydramine. INTERPRETATION: Diphenhydramine use was associated with more SARS-CoV-2 testing and subsequent higher odds for negative tests. While EHR-based observational studies can inform a need for interventional trials, this study revealed limitations of EHR data. The finding that diphenhydramine documentation conferred a higher odds of testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 must be interpreted with caution due to probable selection bias.Abbreviations: SARS-CoV-2, ACE2, COVID-19, EHR.