Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
Add filters

Year range
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(1): JC10, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1605666

ABSTRACT

SOURCE CITATION: Lopez-Leon S, Wegman-Ostrosky T, Perelman C, et al. More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11:16144. 34373540.

3.
SN Compr Clin Med ; : 1-12, 2021 Aug 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568435

ABSTRACT

Remdesivir is one of few FDA-approved treatments for severe cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To better assess its efficacy and safety, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically identify and synthesize existing findings. We conducted a comprehensive literature search among six electronic databases and unpublished studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to summarize the risk ratio (RR) and rate estimates from eligible studies. Funnel plots, the Egger test, and the trim and fill analysis were used to detect publication bias. Thirteen eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, giving a pooled sample size of 10,002 COVID-19 hospitalized patients (5068 administered remdesivir; 4934 control). Among patients on remdesivir, we synthesized mortality (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9%, 22%), clinical improvement (64%, 95% CI: 51%, 78%), recovery (70%, 95% CI: 57%, 83%), hospital discharge (74%, 95% CI: 60%, 87%), serious adverse effect (SAE) (21%, 95% CI:13%, 29%), and Grade 3 or 4 adverse effect (AE) (30%, 95% CI: 12%, 48%). Patients on remdesivir were 17% (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.06) less likely to die than those within the control group. Additionally, remdesivir had favorable outcomes in terms of clinical improvement, recovery, and hospital discharge. Lastly, non-mechanically ventilated patients had better overall clinical outcomes than mechanically ventilated patients. Remdesivir shows a moderate-favorable treatment efficacy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with disproportionate impact among non-mechanically ventilated patients; however, a substantial proportion of COVID-19 patients may suffer from SAE or Grade 3 or 4 AE during the treatment course. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42399-021-01014-y.

4.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S809-S810, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564579

ABSTRACT

Background Casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS/IMDEV) is authorized for emergency use in the US for outpatients with COVID-19. We present results from patient cohorts receiving low flow or no supplemental oxygen at baseline from a phase 1/2/3, randomized, double-blinded, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of CAS/IMDEV in hospitalized patients (pts) with COVID-19. Methods Hospitalized COVID-19 pts were randomized 1:1:1 to 2.4 g or 8.0 g of IV CAS/IMDEV (co-administered) or PBO. Primary endpoints were time-weighted average (TWA) change in viral load from baseline (Day 1) to Day 7;proportion of pts who died or went on mechanical ventilation (MV) through Day 29. Safety was evaluated through Day 57. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment (no safety concerns). Results Analysis was performed in pooled cohorts (low flow or no supplemental oxygen) as well as combined treatment doses (2.4 g and 8.0 g). The prespecified primary virologic analysis was in seronegative (seroneg) pts (combined dose group n=360;PBO n=160), where treatment with CAS/IMDEV led to a significant reduction in viral load from Day 1–7 (TWA change: LS mean (SE): -0.28 (0.12);95% CI: -0.51, -0.05;P=0.0172;Fig. 1). The primary clinical analysis had a strong positive trend, though it did not reach statistical significance (P=0.2048), and 4/6 clinical endpoints prespecified for hypothesis testing were nominally significant (Table 1). In seroneg pts, there was a 47.0% relative risk reduction (RRR) in the proportion of pts who died or went on MV from Day 1–29 (10.3% treated vs 19.4% PBO;nominal P=0.0061;Fig. 2). There was a 55.6% (6.7% treated vs 15.0% PBO;nominal P=0.0032) and 35.9% (7.3% treated vs 11.5% PBO;nominal P=0.0178) RRR in the prespecified secondary endpoint of mortality by Day 29 in seroneg pts and the overall population, respectively (Fig. 2). No harm was seen in seropositive patients, and no safety events of concern were identified. Figure 1: TWA daily viral load decreased from baseline (Day 1) in seronegative patients receiving low flow or no supplemental oxygen Table 1. Primary virologic and clinical endpoints Figure 2: Clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients receiving low flow or no supplemental oxygen* Conclusion Co-administration of CAS/IMDEV led to a significant reduction in viral load in hospitalized, seroneg pts requiring low flow or no supplemental oxygen. In seroneg pts and the overall population, treatment also demonstrated clinically meaningful, nominally significant reductions in 28-day mortality and proportion of pts dying or requiring MV. Disclosures Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Chemic labs/KODA therapeutics (Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Grant/Research Support)Leidos Biomedical Research Inc/NCI (Grant/Research Support)NIH/NIAID (Grant/Research Support)NIH/NIGMS (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Grant/Research Support)SciClone Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support) Selin Somersan-Karakaya, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Sumathi Sivapalasingam, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Excision BioTherapeutics (Employee)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending, former employee) Shazia Ali, PharmD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yiping Sun, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Rafia Bhore, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Jingning Mei, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Jutta Miller, BS, RN, BARDA (Other Financial or Ma erial Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Lisa Cupelli, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Andrea T. Hooper, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Pfizer, Inc. (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Former employee)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending) Jennifer D. Hamilton, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending) Cynthia Pan, BPharm, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Viet Pham, BS, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yuming Zhao, MS, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Romana Hosain, MD, MPH, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Adnan Mahmood, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) John D. Davis, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Kenneth C. Turner, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending) Yunji Kim, PharmD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Amanda Cook, BS, Dip Reg Aff, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Jason C. Wells, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C) Bari Kowal, MS, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yuhwen Soo, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) A. Thomas DiCioccio, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Gregory P. Geba, MD, DrPH, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Shareholder) Neil Stahl, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending) Leah Lipsich, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Ned Braunstein, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Gary Herman, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending) George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder, Royalties, patents planned, issued or pending) David M. Weinreich, MD, BARDA (Other Financial or Material Support, HHSO100201700020C)Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

5.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296043

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background Hospitalized patients with Covid-19 experience high mortality rates, ranging from 10-30%. Casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV ® ) is authorized in various jurisdictions for use in outpatients with Covid-19 and in post-exposure prophylaxis. The UK-based platform RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized seronegative patients treated with REGEN-COV, but in most of the world, anti-spike monoclonal antibody therapy is currently not approved for use in hospitalized patients. Methods In this phase 1/2/3 double-blind placebo-controlled trial, patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen hospitalized with Covid-19 were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g REGEN-COV or placebo and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 endogenous immune response. Results 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met: in seronegative patients, the LS mean difference (REGEN-COV vs. placebo) for TWA change from baseline viral load was −0.28 log 10 copies/mL (95% CI: −0.51, −0.05;P=0.0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6-29 in patients with high-viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. REGEN-COV reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (RRR, 55.6%;95% CI: 24.2%, 74%). No safety concerns were noted overall nor in seropositive patients. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 on low-flow or no oxygen, REGEN-COV treatment reduced viral load and the risk of death or mechanical ventilation as well as all-cause mortality in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients and no harm observed in seropositive patients. ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04426695 .)

7.
Trop Med Infect Dis ; 6(4)2021 Sep 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438736

ABSTRACT

Vaccination remains the most effective way to prevent COVID-19. The aim of the present study was to assess the incidence of COVID-19 hospitalizations after vaccination, as well as the effect of prior vaccination on hospitalization outcomes among patients with COVID-19. We analyzed and compared all consecutive patients, with or without prior vaccination, who were admitted to our hospital network due to COVID-19 from January to April 2021. Our primary outcome was to identify and describe cases of COVID-19 hospitalized after vaccination. We also utilized a multivariate logistic regression model to investigate the association of previous vaccination with hospitalization outcomes. We identified 915 consecutive patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 with 91/915 (10%) previously vaccinated with at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Utilizing our multivariate logistic regression model, we found that prior vaccination, regardless of the number of doses or days since vaccination, was associated with decreased mortality (aOR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.98) when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Our study showed that COVID-19 related hospitalization after vaccination may occur to a small percentage of patients, mainly those who are partially vaccinated. However, our findings underline that prior vaccination, even when partial, is associated with a decreased risk of death. Ongoing vaccination efforts should remain an absolute priority.

8.
Rhode Island Medical Journal ; 104(7):69-70, 2021.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1391244

ABSTRACT

The article presents SARS-CoV-2 Variants and their Clinical Implications. Topics discussed include variants of SARS-CoV-2 containing the D614G aspartic acid-to-glycine substitution at amino acid position 614 of the spike (S) protein rapidly became dominant;and the clinical symptomatology, with more patients presenting with pharyngitis and upper respiratory symptoms, seems to be different.

9.
Int J Womens Dermatol ; 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1379123

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) care requires a team approach, and dermatologists may collaborate with other specialties, especially infectious disease (ID) medicine and obstetrics and gynecology (ObGyn) at every stage of the infection process. A broad spectrum of cutaneous manifestations may occur early in COVID-19, making appropriate dermatologic identification critical for early diagnosis. There is prognostic value in appropriately identifying different types of COVID-19-associated skin manifestations which have been linked to disease severity. Such observations emanated from dermatology research, especially large series and international registry of cutaneous manifestations relating to COVID-19, and impact COVID-19 care provided by most healthcare providers. Also, research based on international registry of skin reactions from COVID-19 vaccines is having an impact across disciplines. An increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 is encountered in pregnancy, and dermatologists' role is to urge ObGyn and other clinicians to monitor and educate pregnant patients about the potential for some eruptions being a manifestation of COVID-19. ID and ObGyn experts indicate that teledermatology enhanced the interaction among healthcare providers and improved COVID-19 care. Over 40% of all dermatology consults at a tertiary care hospital were done via teledermatology. Future collaborative research involving dermatology and specialties such as ID and ObGyn could help delineate guidelines for dermatology consult in COVID-19 patients and determine cases appropriate for teledermatology.

10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(1): e208-e214, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1291590

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. METHODS: In a matched cohort analysis of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the impact of CP treatment on in-hospital mortality was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models, and the impact of CP treatment on time to hospital discharge was assessed using a stratified log-rank analysis. RESULTS: In total, 64 patients who received CP a median of 7 days after symptom onset were compared to a matched control group of 177 patients. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was 12.5% and 15.8% in the CP and control groups, respectively (P = .52). There was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] .39-2.20). The overall rate of hospital discharge was not significantly different between the 2 groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.28, 95% CI .91-1.81), although there was a significantly increased rate of hospital discharge among patients 65-years-old or greater who received CP (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.03-3.36). There was a greater than expected frequency of transfusion reactions in the CP group (2.8% reaction rate observed per unit transfused). CONCLUSIONS: We did not demonstrate a significant difference in risk of mortality or rate of hospital discharge between the CP and control groups. There was a signal for improved outcomes among the elderly, and further adequately powered randomized studies should target this subgroup when assessing the efficacy of CP treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Humans , Immunization, Passive , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
11.
Lung ; 199(3): 239-248, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1245631

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, only dexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients. Tocilizumab has been recently added to the treatment guidelines for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but data remain conflicting. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Electronic databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane central were searched from March 1, 2020, until March 10, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of tocilizumab in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, mechanical ventilation, and time to discharge. RESULTS: Nine studies (with 6490 patients) were included in the analysis. In total, 3358 patients received tocilizumab, and 3132 received standard care/placebo. Pooled analysis showed a significantly decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, p = 0.02) and progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, p < 0.0001) in the tocilizumab arm compared to standard therapy or placebo. In addition, there was a trend towards improved median time to hospital discharge (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.45, p = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab therapy improves outcomes of mortality and need for mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection compared with standard therapy or placebo. Our findings suggest the efficacy of tocilizumab therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and strengthen the concept that tocilizumab is a promising therapeutic intervention to improve mortality and morbidity in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , COVID-19 , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Immunologic Factors/pharmacology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Obesity (Silver Spring) ; 29(9): 1477-1486, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1219092

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have unveiled a relationship between the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and obesity. The aims of this multicenter retrospective cohort study were to disentangle the association of BMI and associated metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking status) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted to intensive care units for COVID-19 in 21 centers (in Europe, Israel, and the United States) were enrolled in this study between February 19, 2020, and May 19, 2020. Primary and secondary outcomes were the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 28-day mortality, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1,461 patients were enrolled; the median (interquartile range) age was 64 years (40.9-72.0); 73.2% of patients were male; the median BMI was 28.1 kg/m2 (25.4-32.3); a total of 1,080 patients (73.9%) required IMV; and the 28-day mortality estimate was 36.1% (95% CI: 33.0-39.5). An adjusted mixed logistic regression model showed a significant linear relationship between BMI and IMV: odds ratio = 1.27 (95% CI: 1.12-1.45) per 5 kg/m2 . An adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model showed a significant association between BMI and mortality, which was increased only in obesity class III (≥40; hazard ratio = 1.68 [95% CI: 1.06-2.64]). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, a linear association between BMI and the need for IMV, independent of other metabolic risk factors, and a nonlinear association between BMI and mortality risk were observed.


Subject(s)
Body Mass Index , COVID-19 , Pneumonia , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness , Europe , Female , Humans , Israel , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia/mortality , Retrospective Studies , United States
13.
Expert Rev Med Devices ; 18(5): 457-471, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174812

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The use of mechanical ventilation associated with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients, defines a high risk population that requires specific consideration of outcomes and treatment practices.Areas covered: This review evaluates existing information about mortality rates and effectiveness of antiviral, immune-modulating, and anticoagulation treatments in COVID-19 patients who received mechanical ventilation. The mortality rate and follow-up periods in patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged widely. Antivirals, including remdesivir and convalescent plasma, have shown no definitive mortality benefit in this population despite positive results in other COVID-19 patients. Dexamethasone was associated with an absolute reduction in 28-day mortality by 12.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 17.6), after adjusting for age. Reduced mortality has been demonstrated with tocilizumab use alongside corticosteroids. Evidence is inconclusive for therapeutic anticoagulation, and further studies are needed to determine the comparative benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation.Expert opinion: Significant variation and high mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients necessitate more standardized outcome measurements, increased consideration of risk factors to reduce intubation, and improved treatment practices. Anticoagulation and dexamethasone should be incorporated in the treatment of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, while more rigorous studies are required for other potential treatments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacology , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/pharmacology , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Treatment Outcome
14.
Ann Epidemiol ; 58: 64-68, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135244

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Explore potential racial/ethnic differences, describe general clinical characteristic, and severe outcomes (intensive care unit [ICU] admission, mechanical ventilation [intubation], and death) between Hispanic/Latinx (hereafter: Hispanics or Latinx community) and non-Hispanic patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of 326 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through April 19, 2020. Sociodemographic and hospital course data were collected and analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was implemented to examine associations. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), Hispanics were younger (53 years, median age) and had higher rates of Medicaid and less commercial/HMO/PPO coverage (P < .001). Similarly, in the age sub-grouped multivariate analysis for outcomes, Hispanics ≥65-year-old were 2.66 times more likely to be admitted to ICU (95% CI: 1.07-6.61; P = .03), and 3.67 times more likely to get intubated (95% CI: 1.29-10.36; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized Hispanic patients of ≥65-year-old with COVID-19 were more likely to have higher risk of more severe outcomes (ICU admission and intubation) compared with NHW. Hispanic patient's social determinants of health and underlying medical conditions may explain the heightened risk for severe outcomes. Further studies are necessary to more accurately identify and address health disparities in Hispanics and other vulnerable populations amidst COVID-19 and future pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Rhode Island , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Am J Public Health ; 110(12): 1817-1824, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067486

ABSTRACT

Objectives. To identify spatiotemporal patterns of epidemic spread at the community level.Methods. We extracted influenza cases reported between 2016 and 2019 and COVID-19 cases reported in March and April 2020 from a hospital network in Rhode Island. We performed a spatiotemporal hotspot analysis to simulate a real-time surveillance scenario.Results. We analyzed 6527 laboratory-confirmed influenza cases and identified microepidemics in more than 1100 neighborhoods, and more than half of the neighborhoods that had hotspots in a season became hotspots in the next season. We used data from 731 COVID-19 cases, and we found that a neighborhood was 1.90 times more likely to become a COVID-19 hotspot if it had been an influenza hotspot in 2018 to 2019.Conclusions. The use of readily available hospital data allows the real-time identification of spatiotemporal trends and hotspots of microepidemics.Public Health Implications. As local governments move to reopen the economy and ease physical distancing, the use of historic influenza hotspots could guide early prevention interventions, while the real-time identification of hotspots would enable the implementation of interventions that focus on small-area containment and mitigation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza A virus , Pandemics , Public Health Surveillance , Rhode Island/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Spatio-Temporal Analysis
17.
Pathogens ; 10(1)2020 Dec 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1000318

ABSTRACT

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have had a disproportionally high mortality rate due to COVID-19. We describe a rapidly escalating COVID-19 outbreak among 116 LTCF residents in Rhode Island, USA. Overall, 111 (95.6%) residents tested positive and, of these, 48 (43.2%) died. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (84.7%) and cardiovascular disease (84.7%). A small percentage (9%) of residents were asymptomatic, while 33.3% of residents were pre-symptomatic, with progression to symptoms within a median of three days following the positive test. While typical symptoms of fever (80.2%) and cough (43.2%) were prevalent, shortness of breath (14.4%) was rarely found despite common hypoxemia (95.5%). The majority of patients demonstrated atypical symptoms with the most common being loss of appetite (61.3%), lethargy (42.3%), diarrhea (37.8%), and fatigue (32.4%). Many residents had increased agitation (38.7%) and anxiety (5.4%), potentially due to the restriction measures or the underlying mental illness. The fever curve was characterized by an intermittent low-grade fever, often the first presenting symptom. Mortality was associated with a disease course beginning with a loss of appetite and lethargy, as well as one more often involving fever greater than 38 °C, loss of appetite, altered mental status, diarrhea, and respiratory distress. Interestingly, no differences in age or comorbidities were noted between survivors and non-survivors. Taking demographic factors into account, treatment with anticoagulation was still associated with reduced mortality (adjusted OR 0.16; 95% C.I. 0.06-0.39; p < 0.001). Overall, the clinical features of the disease in this population can be subtle and the symptoms are commonly atypical. However, clinical decline among those who did not survive was often rapid with patients expiring within 10 days from disease detection. Further studies are needed to better explain the variability in clinical course of COVID-19 among LTCF residents, specifically the factors affecting mortality, the differences observed in symptom presentation, and rate of clinical decline.

18.
Pathogens ; 10(1):8, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-984101

ABSTRACT

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have had a disproportionally high mortality rate due to COVID-19. We describe a rapidly escalating COVID-19 outbreak among 116 LTCF residents in Rhode Island, USA. Overall, 111 (95.6%) residents tested positive and, of these, 48 (43.2%) died. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (84.7%) and cardiovascular disease (84.7%). A small percentage (9%) of residents were asymptomatic, while 33.3% of residents were pre-symptomatic, with progression to symptoms within a median of three days following the positive test. While typical symptoms of fever (80.2%) and cough (43.2%) were prevalent, shortness of breath (14.4%) was rarely found despite common hypoxemia (95.5%). The majority of patients demonstrated atypical symptoms with the most common being loss of appetite (61.3%), lethargy (42.3%), diarrhea (37.8%), and fatigue (32.4%). Many residents had increased agitation (38.7%) and anxiety (5.4%), potentially due to the restriction measures or the underlying mental illness. The fever curve was characterized by an intermittent low-grade fever, often the first presenting symptom. Mortality was associated with a disease course beginning with a loss of appetite and lethargy, as well as one more often involving fever greater than 38 °C, loss of appetite, altered mental status, diarrhea, and respiratory distress. Interestingly, no differences in age or comorbidities were noted between survivors and non-survivors. Taking demographic factors into account, treatment with anticoagulation was still associated with reduced mortality (adjusted OR 0.16;95% C.I. 0.06–0.39;p <0.001). Overall, the clinical features of the disease in this population can be subtle and the symptoms are commonly atypical. However, clinical decline among those who did not survive was often rapid with patients expiring within 10 days from disease detection. Further studies are needed to better explain the variability in clinical course of COVID-19 among LTCF residents, specifically the factors affecting mortality, the differences observed in symptom presentation, and rate of clinical decline.

19.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0240624, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992680

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for post-acute care services, which is amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS: We studied the pattern of spatial association between post-acute care services and acute care facilities and evaluated how geographic variability could influence their use. METHODS: We compiled data on CMS-certified acute care and critical access hospitals and post-acute health care services (nursing homes, home health care services, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, and hospice facilities). We used the colocation quotient (CLQ) to measure the magnitude and direction of association (clustering or segregation) between post-acute care providers and hospitals. This metric allows pairwise comparison of categorical data; a value <1 indicates spatial segregation and a value >1 spatial clustering. Unity marks the lack of spatial dependence (random distribution). RESULTS: With the exception of nursing homes (CLQ 1.26), all other types of post-acute care providers are spatially segregated from rural critical access hospitals. Long-term care facilities ranked first (had the lowest global CLQ, 0.06), hospice facilities ranked last (had the highest global CLQ estimate, 0.54). Instead, post-acute care services either clustered with (inpatient rehabilitation 2.76, long-term care 2.10, nursing homes 1.37) or were only weakly segregated (home health care 0.86) from acute care hospitals. Home health care (1.44), hospice services (1.46), and nursing homes (1.08) spatially clustered with the same category of services. Results were robust in the sensitivity analysis and we provided illustrative examples of local variation for the states of MA and IA. CONCLUSION: Post-acute care services are isolated from critical access hospitals, and have a clustering pattern with the same category services and acute care hospitals. Such misdistribution of resources may result in both underuse and a substitution effect on the type of post-acute care between rural and urban areas and undermine public health during increasing demand, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Spatial Analysis , Subacute Care/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
20.
Preprint | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-918

ABSTRACT

Background: Communicable diseases spread through social contact networks. The ability of healthcare networks to monitor micro-epidemics and evaluate disease spr

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...