Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Perm J ; 252021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1766162

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic pandemic, stay-at-home orders and fear of acquiring COVID-19 may have led to an avoidance of care for medical emergencies, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We evaluated whether a decline in rates of AMI occurred during the COVID-19 stay-at-home order. METHODS: Rates of AMI per 100,000 member-weeks were calculated for Kaiser Permanente Southern California patients from January 1 to March 3, 2020 (prepandemic period) and from March 20 to July 31, 2020 (pandemic period), and during the same periods in 2019. Rate ratios (RRs) were calculated comparing the time periods using Poisson regression. Case fatality rates (CFRs) were also compared. RESULTS: Rates of AMI were lower during the pandemic period of 2020 compared to the same period of 2019 [3.20 vs 3.76/100,000 member-weeks; RR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.90]. There was no evidence that rates of AMI differed during the 2020 prepandemic period compared to the same period in 2019 (4.45 vs 4.24/100,000 member-weeks; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03). AMI rates were lower during the early pandemic period (March 20-May 7: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77), but not during the later pandemic period (May 8-July 31: RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.02) compared to 2019. In-hospital and 30-day case fatality rates were higher during the pandemic period of 2020 compared to 2019 (8.8% vs 6.1% and 6.5% vs 5.0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: AMI rates were lower during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period in 2019. During stay-at-home orders, public health campaigns that encourage people to seek care for medical emergencies are warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Myocardial Infarction , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Pandemics
2.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(38): 1355-1359, 2020 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389855

ABSTRACT

Pregnant women might be at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), possibly related to changes in their immune system and respiratory physiology* (1). Further, adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm delivery and stillbirth, might be more common among pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (2,3). Information about SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is rapidly growing; however, data on reasons for hospital admission, pregnancy-specific characteristics, and birth outcomes among pregnant women hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infections are limited. During March 1-May 30, 2020, as part of Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)† surveillance of COVID-19 hospitalizations, 105 hospitalized pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, including 62 (59%) hospitalized for obstetric reasons (i.e., labor and delivery or another pregnancy-related indication) and 43 (41%) hospitalized for COVID-19 illness without an obstetric reason. Overall, 50 (81%) of 62 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted for obstetric reasons were asymptomatic. Among 43 pregnant women hospitalized for COVID-19, 13 (30%) required intensive care unit (ICU) admission, six (14%) required mechanical ventilation, and one died from COVID-19. Prepregnancy obesity was more common (44%) among pregnant women hospitalized for COVID-19 than that among asymptomatic pregnant women hospitalized for obstetric reasons (31%). Likewise, the rate of gestational diabetes (26%) among pregnant women hospitalized for COVID-19 was higher than it was among women hospitalized for obstetric reasons (8%). Preterm delivery occurred in 15% of pregnancies among 93 women who delivered, and stillbirths (fetal death at ≥20 weeks' gestation) occurred in 3%. Antenatal counseling emphasizing preventive measures (e.g., use of masks, frequent hand washing, and social distancing) might help prevent COVID-19 among pregnant women,§ especially those with prepregnancy obesity and gestational diabetes, which might reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Health Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
3.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(9): e29959, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1381351

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Dramatic decreases in outpatient visits and sudden increases in telehealth visits were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was unclear whether these changes differed by patient demographics and socioeconomic status. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on in-person outpatient and telehealth visits (telephone and video) by demographic characteristics and household income in a diverse population. METHODS: We calculated weekly rates of outpatient and telehealth visits by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and neighborhood-level median household income among members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) from January 5, 2020, to October 31, 2020, and the corresponding period in 2019. We estimated the percentage change in visit rates during the early pandemic period (March 22 to April 25, 2020) and the late pandemic period (October 4 to October 31, 2020) from the prepandemic period (January 5 to March 7, 2020) in Poisson regression models for each subgroup while adjusting for seasonality using 2019 data. We examined if the changes in visit rates differed by subgroups statistically by comparing their 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among 4.56 million KPSC members enrolled in January 2020, 15.0% (n=682,947) were ≥65 years old, 51.5% (n=2,345,020) were female, 39.4% (n=1,795,994) were Hispanic, and 7.7% (n=350,721) lived in an area of median household income

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Aged , Delivery of Health Care , Female , Humans , Outpatients , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Am J Emerg Med ; 50: 381-387, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363848

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Provider-collected nasopharyngeal specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular testing are the standard of care in many clinical settings, but patient-collected saliva and anterior nares specimens are less invasive and more flexible alternatives. Prior studies comparing specimen types for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing have been limited by small sample sizes and low pretest probability. We conducted a large observational study among symptomatic adults at 7 emergency departments of Kaiser Permanente Southern California to examine sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests by specimen type and patient characteristics. METHODS: Provider-collected nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) specimens and patient-collected saliva and anterior nares specimens were collected at the same visit and analyzed with the Roche cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assay. Patients were considered truly positive for SARS-CoV-2 if any of the three specimens was positive and negative if all three specimens were negative. Factors associated with discordant and missed positive results were examined with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 2112 patients, 350 (16.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity of NP/OP was 93.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90.6%-96.0%), sensitivity of saliva was 87.7% (83.8%-91.0%), and sensitivity of anterior nares was 85.4% (81.3%-89.0%). Patients ages 18-39 years versus ≥40 years were more likely to have discordant results [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.97 (1.12-3.45)], as were patients with <4 symptoms versus ≥4 [aOR 2.43 (1.39-4.25)]. Cycle threshold values were higher for saliva and anterior nares than NP/OP specimens, as well as for specimens in discordant versus concordant sets and patients with fewer symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study provides robust evidence that patient-collected saliva and anterior nares are sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing in emergency department settings, particularly among adults ages ≥40 years and those with multiple symptoms. Higher sensitivity of provider-collected NP/OP specimens must be weighed against the benefits of patient-collected specimens in tailored strategies for SARS-CoV-2 testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Nasal Cavity/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Saliva/virology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(4): e26558, 2021 04 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1232508

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an abrupt reduction in the use of in-person health care, accompanied by a corresponding surge in the use of telehealth services. However, the extent and nature of changes in health care utilization during the pandemic may differ by care setting. Knowledge of the impact of the pandemic on health care utilization is important to health care organizations and policy makers. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are (1) to evaluate changes in in-person health care utilization and telehealth visits during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) to assess the difference in changes in health care utilization between the pandemic year 2020 and the prepandemic year 2019. METHODS: We retrospectively assembled a cohort consisting of members of a large integrated health care organization, who were enrolled between January 6 and November 2, 2019 (prepandemic year), and between January 5 and October 31, 2020 (pandemic year). The rates of visits were calculated weekly for four settings: inpatient, emergency department (ED), outpatient, and telehealth. Using Poisson models, we assessed the impact of the pandemic on health care utilization during the early days of the pandemic and conducted difference-in-deference (DID) analyses to measure the changes in health care utilization, adjusting for the trend of health care utilization in the prepandemic year. RESULTS: In the early days of the pandemic, we observed significant reductions in inpatient, ED, and outpatient utilization (by 30.2%, 37.0%, and 80.9%, respectively). By contrast, there was a 4-fold increase in telehealth visits between weeks 8 (February 23) and 12 (March 22) in 2020. DID analyses revealed that after adjusting for prepandemic secular trends, the reductions in inpatient, ED, and outpatient visit rates in the early days of the pandemic were 1.6, 8.9, and 367.2 visits per 100 person-years (P<.001), respectively, while the increase in telehealth visits was 272.9 visits per 100 person-years (P<.001). Further analyses suggested that the increase in telehealth visits offset the reduction in outpatient visits by week 26 (June 28, 2020). CONCLUSIONS: In-person health care utilization decreased drastically during the early period of the pandemic, but there was a corresponding increase in telehealth visits during the same period. By end-June 2020, the combined outpatient and telehealth visits had recovered to prepandemic levels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Outpatients/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
7.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(5): e30101, 2021 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217031

ABSTRACT

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/26558.].

8.
Pediatrics ; 148(1)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1190194

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on vaccination coverage, critical to preventing vaccine-preventable diseases, has not been assessed during the reopening period. METHODS: Vaccine uptake and vaccination coverage for recommended vaccines and for measles-containing vaccines at milestone ages were assessed in a large cohort of children aged 0 to 18 years in Southern California during January to August 2020 and were compared with those in the same period in 2019. Differences in vaccine uptake and vaccination coverage (recommended vaccines and measles-containing vaccines) in prepandemic (January to March), stay-at-home (April to May), and reopening (June to August) periods in 2020 and 2019 were compared. RESULTS: Total and measles-containing vaccine uptake declined markedly in all children during the pandemic period in 2020 compared with 2019, but recovered in children aged 0 to 23 months. Among children aged 2 to 18 years, measles-containing vaccine uptake recovered, but total vaccine uptake remained lower. Vaccination coverage (recommended and measles-containing vaccines) declined and remained reduced among most milestone age cohorts ≤24 months during the pandemic period, whereas recommended vaccination coverage in older children decreased during the reopening period in 2020 compared with 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric vaccine uptake decreased dramatically during the pandemic, resulting in decreased vaccination coverage that persisted or worsened among several age cohorts during the reopening period. Additional strategies, including immunization tracking, reminders, and recall for needed vaccinations, particularly during virtual visits, will be required to increase vaccine uptake and vaccination coverage and reduce the risk of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Measles Vaccine , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Vaccines , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL