Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(3): 659-668, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants coupled with waning immunity pose a significant threat to the long-term care (LTC) population. Our objective was to measure salivary IgG antibodies in residents and staff of an LTC facility to (1) evaluate IgG response in saliva post-natural infection and vaccination and (2) assess its feasibility to describe the seroprevalence over time. METHODS: We performed salivary IgG sampling of all residents and staff who agreed to test in a 150-bed skilled nursing facility during three seroprevalence surveys between October 2020 and February 2021. The facility had SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in May 2020 and November 2020, when 45 of 138 and 37 of 125 residents were infected, respectively; they offered two Federal vaccine clinics in January 2021. We evaluated quantitative IgG in saliva to the Nucleocapsid (N), Spike (S), and Receptor-binding domain (RBD) Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 over time post-infection and post-vaccination. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four residents and 28 staff underwent saliva serologic testing on one or more survey visits. Over three surveys, the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at the facility was 49%, 64%, and 81%, respectively. IgG to S, RBD, and N Antigens all increased post infection. Post vaccination, the infection naïve group did not have a detectable N IgG level, and N IgG levels for the previously infected did not increase post vaccination (p < 0.001). Fully vaccinated subjects with prior COVID-19 infection had significantly higher RBD and S IgG responses compared with those who were infection-naïve prior to vaccination (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Positive SARS-COV-2 IgG in saliva was concordant with prior infection (Anti N, S, RBD) and vaccination (Anti S, RBD) and remained above positivity threshold for up to 9 months from infection. Salivary sampling is a non-invasive method of tracking immunity and differentiating between prior infection and vaccination to inform the need for boosters in LTC residents and staff.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Saliva/immunology , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Nursing Homes , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States/epidemiology
2.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(32): 1089-1094, 2020 Aug 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389851

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly in nursing homes once it is introduced (1,2). To prevent outbreaks, more data are needed to identify sources of introduction and means of transmission within nursing homes. Nursing home residents who receive hemodialysis (dialysis) might be at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections because of their frequent exposures outside the nursing home to both community dialysis patients and staff members at dialysis centers (3). Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak in a Maryland nursing home (facility A) identified a higher prevalence of infection among residents undergoing dialysis (47%; 15 of 32) than among those not receiving dialysis (16%; 22 of 138) (p<0.001). Among residents with COVID-19, the 30-day hospitalization rate among those receiving dialysis (53%) was higher than that among residents not receiving dialysis (18%) (p = 0.03); the proportion of dialysis patients who died was 40% compared with those who did not receive dialysis (27%) (p = 0.42).Careful consideration of infection control practices throughout the dialysis process (e.g., transportation, time spent in waiting areas, spacing of machines, and cohorting), clear communication between nursing homes and dialysis centers, and coordination of testing practices between these sites are critical to preventing COVID-19 outbreaks in this medically vulnerable population.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Dialysis/adverse effects , Disease Outbreaks , Nursing Homes , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Aged , COVID-19 , Humans , Maryland/epidemiology , Pandemics
3.
HEC Forum ; 33(1-2): 91-107, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081475

ABSTRACT

Responding to a major pandemic and planning for allocation of scarce resources (ASR) under crisis standards of care requires coordination and cooperation across federal, state and local governments in tandem with the larger societal infrastructure. Maryland remains one of the few states with no state-endorsed ASR plan, despite having a plan published in 2017 that was informed by public forums across the state. In this article, we review strengths and weaknesses of Maryland's response to COVID-19 and the role of the Maryland Healthcare Ethics Committee Network (MHECN) in bridging gaps in the state's response to prepare health care facilities for potential implementation of ASR plans. Identified "lessons learned" include: Deliberative Democracy Provided a Strong Foundation for Maryland's ASR Framework; Community Consensus is Informative, Not Normative; Hearing Community Voices Has Inherent Value; Lack of Transparency & Political Leadership Gaps Generate a Fragmented Response; Pandemic Politics Requires Diplomacy & Persistence; Strong Leadership is Needed to Avoid Implementing ASR … And to Plan for ASR; An Effective Pandemic Response Requires Coordination and Information-Sharing Beyond the Acute Care Hospital; and The Ability to Correct Course is Crucial: Reconsidering No-visitor Policies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Ethics Committees , Resource Allocation/ethics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Maryland/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(6): 1199-1205, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1046344

ABSTRACT

Despite the dynamic demands in the nursing home (NH), a definitive approach to managing chronic pain in older adults has yet to be established. Due to concerns for potential adverse pharmacologic effects, balancing appropriate pain management is a challenge among NH residents. The challenges encompass but are not limited to medical complexities, functional disabilities, and physical frailty. Barriers to the successful implementation of a comprehensive chronic pain management at the NH may include ambiguous directions on specific therapeutic interventions, insufficient guidance on treatment duration, and limited available treatment options. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' reporting requirement of adequate pain control among NH residents coupled with widely variable clinician-prescribing habits highlights the difficulties in overcoming the preceding challenges and barriers. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has further complicated pain management due to its negative consequences on well-being of residents of NHs. Associated symptoms of psychosocial stress, anxiety and depression, and chronic pain symptoms can exacerbate during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to increased requirement for pain medications including but not limited to opioids. Pain is a multidimensional symptom and requires a strategic multimodal approach for its management. Nonpharmacologic modalities are underutilized in the NH setting and are the preferred first steps for mild pain, and nonopioid pharmacological agents can be added as a second step for a synergistic effect for moderate to severe pain. Opioids should be used as a last resort. Short-acting opioids are preferred over extended-release/long-acting opioids for chronic pain. Clinicians are encouraged to engage residents in proactive strategies in managing their pain, and to set realistic expectations toward improving their quality of life, as complete elimination of pain is not feasible in most cases. This review article provides the interdisciplinary team with a contemporary perspective of the multitude of changes and challenges influencing the prescribing as well as deprescribing of various pain medications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronic Pain , Aged , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Humans , Medicare , Nursing Homes , Pandemics , Patient-Centered Care , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
6.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 21(12): 1767-1773.e1, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-856825

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Clinical implications of asymptomatic cases of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in nursing homes remain poorly understood. We assessed the association of symptom status and medical comorbidities on mortality and hospitalization risk associated with COVID-19 in residents across 15 nursing homes in Maryland. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1970 residents from 15 nursing home facilities with universal COVID-19 testing in Maryland. METHODS: We used descriptive statistics to compare baseline characteristics, logistic regression to assess the association of comorbidities with COVID-19, and Cox regression to assess the association of asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 with mortality and hospitalization. We assessed the association of comorbidities with mortality and hospitalization risk. Symptom status was assessed at the time of the first test. Maximum follow-up was 94 days. RESULTS: Among the 1970 residents (mean age 73.8, 57% female, 68% black), 752 (38.2%) were positive on their first test. Residents who were positive for COVID-19 and had multiple symptoms at the time of testing had the highest risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 4.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.97, 6.65) and hospitalization (subhazard ratio 2.38, 95% CI 1.70, 3.33), even after accounting for comorbidity burden. Cases who were asymptomatic at testing had a higher risk of mortality (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.95, 4.35) but not hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82, 1.38) compared with those who were negative for COVID-19. Of 52 SARS-CoV-2-positive residents who were asymptomatic at the time of testing and were closely monitored for 14 days at one facility, only 6 (11.6%) developed symptoms. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the nursing home setting was associated with increased risk of death, suggesting a need for closer monitoring of these residents, particularly those with underlying cardiovascular and respiratory comorbidities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , Comorbidity , Nursing Homes , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Maryland , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL