Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-308525

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to N95 respirator shortages worldwide. We compare several respirator extended use and reuse strategies with regard to cost and sustainability.Methods: We developed a model to estimate usage, costs, and waste incurred by several respirator usage strategies over the first 6-months of the pandemic in the United States. This model assumed universal masking of all healthcare workers. Estimates were taken from the literature, government databases, and commercially available data from approved vendors.Findings: A new N95 respirator per patient encounter would require 7∙41 billion respirators, cost $6∙38 billion, and generate 84∙0 million kg of waste in the U.S. over 6-months. One respirator per day per healthcare worker would require 3∙29 billion respirators, $2∙83 billion, and 37∙22 million kg of waste. Decontamination by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation would require 1∙64 billion respirators, $1∙41 billion, and 18∙61 million kg of waste. H2O2 vapor decontamination would require 1∙15 billion respirators, $1∙40 billion, and 13∙03 million kg of waste. One reusable respirator with daily disposable filters would require 18 million respirators, $1∙24 billion, and generate 15∙73 million kg of waste. Pairing a reusable respirator with UVGI or H2O2 vapor-decontaminatable filters would reduce cost to $581∙48 million and generate 1∙58 million kg of waste. The use of one surgical mask per day would require 3∙29 billion masks, cost $493 million, and generate 20∙86 million kg of waste.Interpretation: Reuse-based strategies decreased the number of respirators used, costs, and waste generated compared to single- or daily extended-use of disposable respirators. Future development of low-cost, low-tech technologies to enable respirator and/or filter decontamination is needed to further minimize the economic and environmental costs of masks.Funding: J.N.C: 5T32DK007191;O.G.: MIT Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program;PC: NIH K23DA044874, R44DA051106.Conflict of Interest: The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): A.J.W., J.D.B., and G.T. have filed multiple patents surrounding the respirator and sensors. In addition, A.J.W., J.D.B. and G.T. have a financial interest in TEAL Bio, a biotechnology company focused on developing the next generation of personal protective equipment. J.N.C., P.R.C., O.G, J.C., F.D., and C.H. declare no competing interests.Ethical Approval: Ethics approval was not required for this study.

3.
Dig Dis ; 39(6): 663-672, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573723

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed hospital workflows. This study aimed to characterize differences in gastrointestinal endoscopies in the New York metropolitan region before, during, and after the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Across 3 hospitals, we compared demographics, indications, and yield of endoscopies before and after March 16, 2020, the date on which elective procedures were canceled, as well as a recovery period for 5 months after they were resumed. RESULTS: A total of 9,401 procedures before and 332 procedures during the first wave were performed. Females comprised 57 and 44% of patients (p < 0.01), respectively. There was a decline in the proportion of Black (15 vs. 7%, p < 0.02) and Hispanic patients (29 vs. 16%, p < 0.02) undergoing outpatient procedures. There was a significant rise in urgent indications such as bleeding and jaundice. There was an increase in the diagnostic yield of all esophagogastroduodenoscopies for bleeding (p < 0.01) and of outpatient endoscopic ultrasounds for malignancy (p = 0.01), but no increase in yield of inpatient colonoscopy for bleeding. A review of 7,475 procedures during the recovery period showed a return to many nonurgent indications, but still showed decreased proportions of Hispanic and male patients compared to the prepandemic period. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Lower proportions of Black and Hispanic patients underwent outpatient endoscopies during and after the first wave. The proportion of procedures done for emergent indications and their diagnostic yield increased during the pandemic, suggesting a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. In resource-sparing conditions, clinicians should pay attention to thresholds to perform colonoscopy for bleeding and to racial disparities in outpatient healthcare access.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Female , Humans , Male , New York/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
4.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2135386, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527392

ABSTRACT

Importance: Adoption of mask wearing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic alters daily communication. Objective: To assess communication barriers associated with mask wearing in patient-clinician interactions and individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pilot cross-sectional survey study included the general population, health care workers, and health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing in the United States. Volunteers were sampled via an opt-in survey panel and nonrandomized convenience sampling. The general population survey was conducted between January 5 and January 8, 2021. The health care worker surveys were conducted between December 3, 2020, and January 3, 2021. Respondents viewed 2 short videos of a study author wearing both a standard and transparent N95 mask and answered questions regarding mask use, communication, preference, and fit. Surveys took 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants' perceptions were assessed surrounding the use of both mask types related to communication and the ability to express emotions. Results: The national survey consisted of 1000 participants (mean [SD] age, 48.7 [18.5] years; 496 [49.6%] women) with a response rate of 92.25%. The survey of general health care workers consisted of 123 participants (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [9.0] years; 84 [68.3%] women), with a response rate of 11.14%. The survey of health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing consisted of 45 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.5 [9.0] years; 30 [66.7%] women) with a response rate of 23.95%. After viewing a video demonstrating a study author wearing a transparent N95 mask, 781 (78.1%) in the general population, 109 general health care workers (88.6%), and 38 health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing (84.4%) were able to identify the emotion being expressed, in contrast with 201 (20.1%), 25 (20.5%), and 11 (24.4%) for the standard opaque N95 mask. In the general population, 450 (45.0%) felt positively about interacting with a health care worker wearing a transparent mask; 76 general health care workers (61.8%) and 37 health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing (82.2%) felt positively about wearing a transparent mask to communicate with patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that transparent masks could help improve communication during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communication Barriers , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Masks/statistics & numerical data , Professional-Patient Relations , Adult , Communication , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States , Young Adult
5.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259514, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502075

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. CONCLUSION: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Famotidine/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Adult , Aged , Data Management , Female , Histamine H2 Antagonists/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observational Studies as Topic , Odds Ratio , Proportional Hazards Models , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk , SARS-CoV-2
6.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258088, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456090

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted medical student education, particularly in New York City (NYC). We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students' residency choices. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of medical students in all years of study at four NYC medical schools (Columbia, Cornell, NYU, and SUNY Downstate). The survey was fielded from 19 Aug 2020 to 21 Sep 2020. Survey questions included items assessing COVID-19 impact on residency choices, personal impact of COVID-19, residency/specialty choices, and factors influencing these choices. RESULTS: A total of 2310 students received the survey, with 547 (23.7%) providing partial responses and 212 (9.2%) providing valid responses for our primary analysis. 59.0% of participants thought that COVID-19 influenced their choice of residency/specialty, with 0.9% saying the influence was to a great extent, 22.2% to some extent, and 35.8% very little. On multivariable analysis, factors that were independently associated with COVID-19 impacting residency choice included low debt ($1 to $99,999: adjOR 2.23, 95%CI 1.02-5.03) compared with no debt and Other race/ethnicity (adjOR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10-0.63) compared with White race/ethnicity. On secondary analysis of all participants answering survey items for logistic regression regardless of survey completion, direct personal impact of COVID-19 was significantly associated with COVID-19 impacting specialty choice (adjOR 1.90, 95%CI 1.04-3.52). Moreover, 24 students (11.6%) reported a change in their top residency choice from before to during/after COVID-19, citing concerns about frontline work, work-life balance, and risk of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that 3 in 5 (59.0%) participants felt that COVID-19 impacted their residency choice, with 11.6% of respondents explicitly changing their top specialty choice. Investigating the impact of the pandemic on medical student residency considerations is crucial to understand how medical career outlooks may change in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Choice Behavior , Internship and Residency/statistics & numerical data , New York City , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , New York City/epidemiology
7.
Public Health Nutrition ; 24(12):3929-3936, 2021.
Article in English | CAB Abstracts | ID: covidwho-1410771

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine associations between sociodemographic and mental health characteristics with household risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 outbreak. Design: Cross-sectional online survey analysed using univariable tests and a multivariable logistic regression model. Setting: The United States during the week of 30 March 2020. Participants: A convenience sample of 1965 American adults using Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Participants reporting household food insecurity prior to the pandemic were excluded from analyses.

9.
Appetite ; 167: 105639, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347492

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has affected the health and well-being of almost every American. The aim of this study was to examine the sustained impacts of COVID-19 prevention measures on the diet and exercise habits, risk for food insecurity, and quality of life among adults in the U.S. We conducted a longitudinal study using a convenience sample of participants recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform between March 30 and April 7, 2020, and 8 months into the outbreak, from November 2 to November 21, 2020. We compared self-reported diet and exercise habits and risk for food insecurity shortly after the pandemic began, in April, to those reported in November. We also measured changes in quality-of-life using the PROMIS-29 + 2 (PROPr) scale. A total of 636 respondents completed both surveys. Compared to reports in April, respondents ate lunch and dinner out more frequently in November and consumed more take-out and fast food. Weekly frequencies of consuming frozen food and the number of daily meals were slightly lower in November than they were in April. 54% of respondents screened positively for being at risk for food insecurity in April, reducing to 41% by November. In April, survey respondents were found to have lower quality-of-life relative to U.S. population norms, but by November levels of depression and cognitive function had improved. Our findings underscore how the initial effects of the pandemic on diet, exercise, risk for food insecurity, and quality of life have evolved. As U.S. states re-open, continued efforts to encourage healthy eating and support mental health, especially to reduce feelings of anxiety and social isolation, remain important to mitigate the potential long-term effects of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Adult , Diet , Food Insecurity , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
10.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol ; 28(7): 1411-1419.e1, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322221

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical volume and emergency department (ED) consults across obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) services at a New York City hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center in New York City. PATIENTS: Women undergoing OB-GYN ED consults or surgeries between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: March 16 institutional moratorium on elective surgeries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The volume and types of surgeries and ED consults were compared before and after the COVID-19 moratorium. During the pandemic, the average weekly volume of ED consults and gynecology (GYN) surgeries decreased, whereas obstetric (OB) surgeries remained stable. The proportions of OB-GYN ED consults, GYN surgeries, and OB surgeries relative to all ED consults, all surgeries, and all labor and delivery patients were 1.87%, 13.8%, 54.6% in the pre-COVID-19 time frame (February 1-March 15) vs 1.53%, 21.3%, 79.7% in the COVID-19 time frame (March 16-April 15), representing no significant difference in proportions of OB-GYN ED consults (p = .464) and GYN surgeries (p = .310) before and during COVID-19, with a proportionate increase in OB surgeries (p <.002). The distribution of GYN surgical case types changed significantly during the pandemic with higher proportions of emergent surgeries for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and concern for cancer (p <.001). Alternatively, the OB surgery distribution of case types remained relatively constant. CONCLUSION: This study highlights how the pandemic has affected the ways that patients in OB-GYN access and receive care. Institutional policies suspending elective surgeries during the pandemic decreased GYN surgical volume and affected the types of cases performed. This decrease was not appreciated for OB surgical volume, reflecting the nonelective and time-sensitive nature of obstetric care. A decrease in ED consults was noted during the pandemic begging the question "Where have all the emergencies gone?" Although the moratorium on elective procedures was necessary, "elective" GYN surgeries remain medically indicated to address symptoms such as pain and bleeding and to prevent serious medical sequelae such as severe anemia requiring transfusion. As we continue to battle COVID-19, we must not lose sight of those patients whose care has been deferred.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergencies/epidemiology , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Obstetric Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Pregnancy , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
11.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e048687, 2021 07 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1316937

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of respirator extended use and reuse strategies with regard to cost and sustainability during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cost analysis. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: All healthcare workers within the USA. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A model was developed to estimate usage, costs and waste incurred by several respirator usage strategies over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the USA. This model assumed universal masking of all healthcare workers. Estimates were taken from the literature, government databases and commercially available data from approved vendors. RESULTS: A new N95 respirator per patient encounter would require 7.41 billion respirators, cost $6.38 billion and generate 84.0 million kg of waste in the USA over 6 months. One respirator per day per healthcare worker would require 3.29 billion respirators, cost $2.83 billion and generate 37.22 million kg of waste. Decontamination by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation would require 1.64 billion respirators, cost $1.41 billion and accumulate 18.61 million kg of waste. H2O2 vapour decontamination would require 1.15 billion respirators, cost $1.65 billion and produce 13.03 million kg of waste. One reusable respirator with daily disposable filters would require 18 million respirators, cost $1.24 billion and generate 15.73 million kg of waste. Pairing a reusable respirator with H2O2 vapour-decontaminated filters would reduce cost to $831 million and generate 1.58 million kg of waste. The use of one surgical mask per healthcare worker per day would require 3.29 billion masks, cost $460 million and generate 27.92 million kg of waste. CONCLUSIONS: Decontamination and reusable respirator-based strategies decreased the number of respirators used, costs and waste generated compared with single-use or daily extended-use of disposable respirators. Future development of low-cost,simple technologies to enable respirator and/or filter decontamination is needed to further minimise the economic and environmental costs of masks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Decontamination , Humans , Hydrogen Peroxide , Masks , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilators, Mechanical
12.
Humanities & Social Sciences Communications ; 8(1), 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1147869

ABSTRACT

Social distancing policies are currently the best method of mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, adherence to these policies vary greatly on a county-by-county level. We used social distancing adherence (SoDA) estimated from mobile phone data and population-based demographics/statistics of 3054 counties in the United States to determine which demographics features correlate to adherence on a countywide level. SoDA scores per day were extracted from mobile phone data and aggregated from March 16, 2020 to April 14, 2020. 45 predictor features were evaluated using univariable regression to determine their level of correlation with SoDA. These 45 features were then used to form a SoDA prediction model. Persons who work from home prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (β = 0.259, p < 0.00001) and owner-occupied housing unit rate (β = −0.322, p < 0.00001) were the most positively correlated and negatively correlated features to SoDA, respectively. Counties with higher per capita income, older persons, and more suburban areas were positively associated with adherence while counties with higher African American population, high obesity rate, earlier first COVID-19 case/death, and more Republican-leaning residents were negatively correlated with adherence. The base model predicted county SoDA with 90.8% accuracy. The model using only COVID-19-related features predicted with 64% accuracy and the model using the top 25 most substantial features predicted with 89% accuracy. Our results indicate that economic features, health features, and a few other features, such as political affiliation, race, and the time since the first case/death, impact SoDA on a countywide level. These features, combined, can predict adherence with a high level of confidence. Our prediction model could be utilized to inform health policy planning and potential interventions in areas with lower adherence.

13.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(3): e210667, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1116912

ABSTRACT

Importance: Before the widespread implementation of robotic systems to provide patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic occurs, it is important to understand the acceptability of these systems among patients and the economic consequences associated with the adoption of robotics in health care settings. Objective: To assess the acceptability and feasibility of using a mobile robotic system to facilitate health care tasks. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study included 2 components: a national survey to examine the acceptability of using robotic systems to perform health care tasks in a hospital setting and a single-site cohort study of patient experiences and satisfaction with the use of a mobile robotic system to facilitate triage and telehealth tasks in the emergency department (ED). The national survey comprised individuals living in the US who participated in a sampling-based survey via an online analytic platform. Participants completed the national survey between August 18 and August 21, 2020. The single-site cohort study included patients living in the US who presented to the ED of a large urban academic hospital providing quaternary care in Boston, Massachusetts between April and August 2020. All data were analyzed from August to October 2020. Exposures: Participants in the national survey completed an online survey to measure the acceptability of using a mobile robotic system to perform health care tasks (facilitating telehealth interviews, acquiring vital signs, obtaining nasal or oral swabs, placing an intravenous catheter, performing phlebotomy, and turning a patient in bed) in a hospital setting in the contexts of general interaction and interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients in the cohort study were exposed to a mobile robotic system, which was controlled by an ED clinician and used to facilitate a triage interview. After exposure, patients completed an assessment to measure their satisfaction with the robotic system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptability of the use of a mobile robotic system to facilitate health care tasks in a hospital setting (national survey) and feasibility and patient satisfaction regarding the use of a mobile robotic system in the ED (cohort study). Results: For the national survey, 1154 participants completed all acceptability questions, representing a participation rate of 35%. After sample matching, a nationally representative sample of 1000 participants (mean [SD] age, 48.7 [17.0] years; 535 women [53.5%]) was included in the analysis. With regard to the usefulness of a robotic system to perform specific health care tasks, the response of "somewhat useful" was selected by 373 participants (37.3%) for facilitating telehealth interviews, 350 participants (35.0%) for acquiring vital signs, 307 participants (30.7%) for obtaining nasal or oral swabs, 228 participants (22.8%) for placing an intravenous catheter, 249 participants (24.9%) for performing phlebotomy, and 371 participants (37.1%) for turning a patient in bed. The response of "extremely useful" was selected by 287 participants (28.7%) for facilitating telehealth interviews, 413 participants (41.3%) for acquiring vital signs, 192 participants (19.2%) for obtaining nasal or oral swabs, 159 participants (15.9%) for placing an intravenous catheter, 167 participants (16.7%) for performing phlebotomy, and 371 participants (37.1%) for turning a patient in bed. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the median number of individuals who perceived the application of robotic systems to be acceptable for completing telehealth interviews, obtaining nasal and oral swabs, placing an intravenous catheter, and performing phlebotomy increased. For the ED cohort study, 51 individuals were invited to participate, and 41 participants (80.4%) enrolled. One participant was unable to complete the study procedures because of a signaling malfunction in the robotic system. Forty patients (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [2.7] years; 29 women [72.5%]) completed the mobile robotic system-facilitated triage interview, and 37 patients (92.5%) reported that the interaction was satisfactory. A total of 33 participants (82.5%) reported that their experience of receiving an interview facilitated by a mobile robotic system was as satisfactory as receiving an in-person interview from a clinician. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a mobile robotic system was perceived to be acceptable for use in a broad set of health care tasks among survey respondents across the US. The use of a mobile robotic system enabled the facilitation of contactless triage interviews of patients in the ED and was considered acceptable among participants. Most patients in the ED rated the quality of mobile robotic system-facilitated interaction to be equivalent to in-person interaction with a clinician.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospitals , Patient Care/methods , Patient Satisfaction , Robotics/methods , Triage , Adult , Aged , Boston , COVID-19 , Catheterization , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Phlebotomy , Physical Examination , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine
15.
Public Health Nutr ; 24(12): 3929-3936, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1049949

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between sociodemographic and mental health characteristics with household risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 outbreak. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey analysed using univariable tests and a multivariable logistic regression model. SETTING: The United States during the week of 30 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 1965 American adults using Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Participants reporting household food insecurity prior to the pandemic were excluded from analyses. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and fifty participants reported household food security before the COVID-19 outbreak. Among this subset, 41 % were identified as at risk for food insecurity after COVID-19, 55 % were women and 73 % were white. On a multivariable analysis, race, income, relationship status, living situation, anxiety and depression were significantly associated with an incident risk for food insecurity. Black, Asian and Hispanic/Latino respondents, respondents with an annual income <$100 000 and those living with children or others were significantly more likely to be newly at risk for food insecurity. Individuals at risk for food insecurity were 2·60 (95 % CI 1·91, 3·55) times more likely to screen positively for anxiety and 1·71 (95 % CI 1·21, 2·42) times more likely to screen positively for depression. CONCLUSIONS: An increased risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic is common, and certain populations are particularly vulnerable. There are strong associations between being at risk for food insecurity and anxiety/depression. Interventions to increase access to healthful foods, especially among minority and low-income individuals, and ease the socioemotional effects of the outbreak are crucial to relieving the economic stress of this pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Food Insecurity , Pandemics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
16.
Dig Dis Sci ; 66(12): 4398-4405, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1042837

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with COVID-19, but prevalence of co-infection with enteric pathogens is unknown. AIMS: This study assessed the prevalence of enteric infections among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We evaluated 4973 hospitalized patients ≥ 18 years of age tested for COVID-19 from March 11 through April 28, 2020, at two academic hospitals. The primary exposure was a positive COVID-19 test. The primary outcome was detection of a gastrointestinal pathogen by PCR stool testing. RESULTS: Among 4973 hospitalized individuals, 311 were tested for gastrointestinal infections (204 COVID-19 positive, 107 COVID-19 negative). Patients with COVID-19 were less likely to test positive compared to patients without COVID-19 (10% vs 22%, p < 0.01). This trend was driven by lower rates of non-C.difficile infections (11% vs 22% in COVID-19 positive vs. negative, respectively, p = 0.04), but not C. difficile infection (5.1% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.33). On multivariable analysis, infection with COVID-19 remained significantly associated with lower odds of concurrent GI infection (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.97), again driven by reduced non-C.difficile infection. Testing for both C.difficile and non-C.difficile enteric infection decreased dramatically during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Pathogens aside from C.difficile do not appear to be a significant contributor to diarrhea in COVID-19 positive patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Clostridioides difficile/isolation & purification , Clostridium Infections/epidemiology , Coinfection , Diarrhea/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Clostridium Infections/diagnosis , Clostridium Infections/microbiology , Diarrhea/diagnosis , Diarrhea/microbiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Young Adult
17.
J Rheumatol ; 48(3): 454-462, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-902699

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of autoimmune (AI) disease on the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, or death from COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 186 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and April 15, 2020 at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The cohort included 62 patients with AI disease and 124 age- and sex-matched controls. The primary outcome was a composite of ICU admission, intubation, and death, with secondary outcome as time to in-hospital death. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, vital signs, and laboratory values were collected. Conditional logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess the association between AI disease and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with AI disease were more likely to have at least one comorbidity (87.1% vs 74.2%, P = 0.04), take chronic immunosuppressive medications (66.1% vs 4.0%, P < 0.01), and have had a solid organ transplant (16.1% vs 1.6%, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in ICU admission (13.7% vs 19.4%, P = 0.32), intubation (13.7% vs 17.7%, P = 0.47), or death (16.1% vs 14.5%, P = 0.78). On multivariable analysis, patients with AI disease were not at an increased risk for a composite outcome of ICU admission, intubation, or death (ORadj 0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.67). On Cox regression, AI disease was not associated with in-hospital mortality (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.63). CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with AI disease did not have an increased risk of a composite outcome of ICU admission, intubation, or death.


Subject(s)
Autoimmune Diseases , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Autoimmune Diseases/complications , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , New York City , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
18.
Genet Med ; 23(3): 576-580, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-872688

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Rare genetic conditions like Down syndrome (DS) are historically understudied. Infection is a leading cause of mortality in DS, along with cardiac anomalies. Currently, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic affects individuals with DS. Herein, we report an analysis of individuals with DS who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York, New York, USA. METHODS: In this retrospective, dual-center study of 7246 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, we analyzed all patients with DS admitted in the Mount Sinai Health System and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. We assessed hospitalization rates, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 12 patients with DS. Hospitalized individuals with DS are on average ten years younger than patients without DS. Patients with DS have more severe disease than controls, particularly an increased incidence of sepsis and mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that individuals with DS who are hospitalized with COVID-19 are younger than their non-DS counterparts, and that they have more severe disease than age-matched controls. We conclude that particular care should be considered for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in these patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , Down Syndrome , Adult , Comorbidity , Down Syndrome/complications , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
19.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 19(7): 1402-1409.e1, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-807692

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Our understanding of outcomes and disease time course of COVID-19 in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms remains limited. In this study we characterize the disease course and severity of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal manifestations in a large, diverse cohort from the Unites States. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 between March 11 and April 28, 2020 at two affiliated hospitals in New York City. We evaluated the association between GI symptoms and death, and also explored disease duration, from symptom onset to death or discharge. RESULTS: Of 2804 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 1,084 (38.7%) patients with GI symptoms were younger (aOR for age ≥75, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and had more co-morbidities (aOR for modified Charlson comorbidity score ≥2, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48) compared to those without GI symptoms. Individuals with GI symptoms had better outcomes, with a lower likelihood of intubation (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79) and death (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87), after adjusting for clinical factors. These patients had a longer median disease course from symptom onset to discharge (13.8 vs 10.8 days, log-rank p = .048; among 769 survivors with available symptom onset time), which was driven by longer time from symptom onset to hospitalization (7.4 vs 5.4 days, log-rank P < .01). CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients with GI manifestations of COVID-19 have a reduced risk of intubation and death, but may have a longer overall disease course driven by duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Gastrointestinal Diseases/virology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Comorbidity , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , New York City , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL