COVID-19 Vaccine Reactogenicity and Vaccine Attitudes Among Children and Parents/Guardians After Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children or COVID-19 Hospitalization: September 2021-May 2022.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a multiorgan hyperinflammatory condition following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data on COVID-19 vaccine adverse events and vaccine attitudes in children with prior MIS-C are limited. We described characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine adverse events and vaccine attitudes in children with a history of MIS-C or COVID-19 and their parents/guardians. METHODS: We enrolled children previously hospitalized for MIS-C or COVID-19 from 3 academic institutions. We abstracted charts and interviewed children and parents/guardians regarding vaccine adverse events and acceptability. RESULTS: Of 163 vaccine-eligible children enrolled with a history of MIS-C and 70 with history of COVID-19, 51 (31%) and 34 (49%), respectively, received mRNA COVID-19 vaccine a median of 10 (Interquartile Range 6-13) months after hospital discharge. Among 20 children with MIS-C and parents/guardians who provided interviews, local injection site reaction of brief duration (mean 1.8 days) was most commonly reported; no children required medical care within 2 weeks postvaccination. Vaccine survey results of interviewed, vaccinated children and their parents/guardians: of 20 children with MIS-C and 15 children with COVID-19, 17 (85%) and 13 (87%), respectively, listed doctors in the top 3 most trusted sources for vaccine information; 13 (65%) and 9 (60%) discussed vaccination with their doctor. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was well tolerated in children with prior MIS-C or COVID-19 participating in our investigation. Parents/guardians regarded their children's doctors as a trusted source of information for COVID-19 vaccines, and most vaccinated children's parents/guardians had discussed COVID-19 vaccination for their child with their doctor.

Engagement With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Coronavirus Self-Checker and Guidance Provided to Users in the United States From March 23, 2020, to April 19, 2021: Thematic and Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced surges in healthcare needs, which challenged capacity throughout the healthcare system. Stay-at-home orders in many jurisdictions, cancellation of elective procedures, and closures of outpatient medical offices disrupted patient access to care. To inform symptomatic persons about when to seek care and potentially help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners developed the CDC Coronavirus Self-Checker ("Self-Checker"). This interactive tool assists individuals seeking information about COVID-19 to determine the appropriate level of care by asking demographic, clinical, and nonclinical questions during an online "conversation." OBJECTIVE: This paper describes user characteristics, trends in use, and recommendations delivered by the Self-Checker between March 23, 2020, and April 19, 2021, for pursuing appropriate levels of medical care depending on the severity of user symptoms. METHODS: User characteristics and trends in completed conversations that resulted in a care message were analyzed. Care messages delivered by the Self-Checker were manually classified into three overarching conversation themes: (1) seek care immediately; (2) take no action, or stay home and self-monitor; and (3) conversation redirected. Trends in 7-day averages of conversations and COVID-19 cases were examined with development and marketing milestones that potentially impacted Self-Checker user engagement. RESULTS: Among 16,718,667 completed conversations, the Self-Checker delivered recommendations for 69.27% (n=11,580,738) of all conversations to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor"; 28.8% (n=4,822,138) of conversations to "seek care immediately"; and 1.89% (n=315,791) of conversations were redirected to other resources without providing any care advice. Among 6.8 million conversations initiated for self-reported sick individuals without life-threatening symptoms, 59.21% resulted in a recommendation to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." Nearly all individuals (99.8%) who were not sick were also advised to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Self-Checker conversations resulted in advice to take no action, or stay home and self-monitor. This guidance may have reduced patient volume on the medical system; however, future studies evaluating patients' satisfaction, intention to follow the care advice received, course of action, and care modality pursued could clarify the impact of the Self-Checker and similar tools during future public health emergencies.

An Evaluation of the Text Illness Monitoring (TIM) Platform for COVID-19: Cross-sectional Online Survey of Public Health Users.

BACKGROUND: The US public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required contact tracing and symptom monitoring at an unprecedented scale. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several partners created the Text Illness Monitoring (TIM) platform in 2015 to assist US public health jurisdictions with symptom monitoring for potential novel influenza virus outbreaks. Since May 2020, 142 federal, state, and local public health agencies have deployed TIM for COVID-19 symptom monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility, benefits, and challenges of TIM to help guide decision-making for improvements and expansion to support future public health emergency response efforts. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey of previous and current TIM administrative users (admin users) from November 28 through December 21, 2020. Closed- and open-ended questions inquired about the onboarding process, decision to use TIM, groups monitored with TIM, comparison of TIM to other symptom monitoring systems, technical challenges and satisfaction with TIM, and user support. A total of 1479 admin users were invited to participate. RESULTS: A total of 97 admin users from 43 agencies responded to the survey. Most admin users represented the Indian Health Service (35/97, 36%), state health departments (26/97, 27%), and local or county health departments (18/97, 19%), and almost all were current users of TIM (85/94, 90%). Among the 43 agencies represented, 11 (26%) used TIM for monitoring staff exclusively, 13 (30%) monitored community members exclusively, and 19 (44%) monitored both staff and community members. Agencies most frequently used TIM to monitor symptom development in contacts of cases among community members (28/43, 65%), followed by symptom development among staff (27/43, 63%) and among staff contacts of cases (24/43, 56%). Agencies also reported using TIM to monitor patients with COVID-19 for the worsening of symptoms among staff (21/43, 49%) and community members (18/43, 42%). When asked to compare TIM to previous monitoring systems, 78% (40/51) of respondents rated TIM more favorably than their previous monitoring system, 20% (10/51) said there was no difference, and 2% (1/51) rated the previous monitoring system more favorably than TIM. Most respondents found TIM favorable in terms of time burden, staff burden, timeliness of the data, and the ability to monitor large population sizes. TIM compared negatively to other systems in terms of effort to enroll participants (ie, persons TIM monitors) and accuracy of the data. Most respondents (76/85, 89%) reported that they would highly or somewhat recommend TIM to others for symptom monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of TIM showed that agencies used TIM for a variety of purposes and rated TIM favorably compared to previously used monitoring systems. We also identified opportunities to improve TIM; for example, enhancing the flexibility of alert deliveries would better meet admin users' varying needs. We also suggest continuous program evaluation practices to assess and respond to implementation gaps.

Telehealth and Public Health Practice in the United States-Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Telehealth is the use of electronic information and telecommunication technologies to provide care when the patient and the provider are not in the same room at the same time. Telehealth accounted for less than 1% of all Medicare Fee-for-Service outpatient visits in the United States in 2019 but grew to account for 46% of all visits in April 2020. Changes in reimbursement and licensure policies during the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to greatly facilitate this increased use. Telehealth will continue to account for a substantial portion of care provided in the United States and globally. A better understanding of telehealth approaches and their evidence base by public health practitioners may help improve their ability to collaborate with health care organizations to improve population health. The article summarizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) approach to understanding the evidence base for telehealth in public health practice, possible applications for telehealth in public health practice, and CDC's use of telehealth to improve population health.

Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit Overcrowding and Ventilator Shortages in US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-2021.

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic overburdened the US health care system because of extended and unprecedented patient surges and supply shortages in hospitals. We investigated the extent to which several US hospitals experienced emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) overcrowding and ventilator shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed Health Pulse data to assess the extent to which US hospitals reported alerts when experiencing ED overcrowding, ICU overcrowding, and ventilator shortages from March 7, 2020, through April 30, 2021. RESULTS: Of 625 participating hospitals in 29 states, 393 (63%) reported at least 1 hospital alert during the study period: 246 (63%) reported ED overcrowding, 239 (61%) reported ICU overcrowding, and 48 (12%) reported ventilator shortages. The number of alerts for overcrowding in EDs and ICUs increased as the number of COVID-19 cases surged. CONCLUSIONS: Timely assessment and communication about critical factors such as ED and ICU overcrowding and ventilator shortages during public health emergencies can guide public health response efforts in supporting federal, state, and local public health agencies.

Trends in Treatments for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C), United States, February 2020 - July 2021.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a novel severe postinfectious condition associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The purpose of this report is to describe nationwide trends in the evolving clinical management of MIS-C. METHODS: Patients with MIS-C were reported from state and local jurisdictions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) MIS-C national surveillance system. Patients' case reports were reviewed to ensure that they met the CDC MIS-C case definition and had sufficient data for analysis. The prevalence of use of treatments for MIS-C, temporal trends in use of these treatments, and frequency of administration of different treatment combinations were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 4470 patients meeting the MIS-C case definition with onset dates from 19 February 2020 to 31 July 2021. The proportion of patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) has declined over time, from 78.7% in April 2020 to 57.5% in June 2021 (P = .001). The most common treatments were intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), given to 85.6% of patients; steroids (77.7%), and antiplatelet medications (73.7%); use of each of these treatments has increased over time, particularly in patients not requiring admission to an ICU (all P < .001). Older patients and non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to receive additional modes of therapy including vasoactive medication, noninvasive respiratory support, anticoagulation medication, and intubation/mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: IVIG, steroids, and antiplatelet medication have become increasingly utilized as standard treatment for MIS-C patients, while the use of other treatments may be contingent on the type and severity of clinical findings.