Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(11): 1903-1911, 2022 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1806307

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is a severe condition temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we applied the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case definition to identify diagnosed and undiagnosed MIS-A cases among adults discharged during April 2020-January 2021 from 4 Atlanta, Georgia hospitals affiliated with a single medical center. Non-MIS-A coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification encounter code U07.1. We calculated the ratio of MIS-A to COVID-19 hospitalizations, compared demographic characteristics of the 2 cohorts, and described clinical characteristics of MIS-A patients. RESULTS: We identified 11 MIS-A cases, none of which were diagnosed by the treatment team, and 5755 COVID-19 hospitalizations (ratio 1:523). Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-A were more likely to be younger than 50 years (72.7% vs 26.1%, P < .01) and to be non-Hispanic Black (81.8% vs 50.0%, P = .04). Ten patients with MIS-A (90.9%) had at least 1 underlying medical condition. Two MIS-A patients (18.2%) had a previous episode of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, occurring 37 and 55 days prior to admission. All MIS-A patients developed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. None had documented mucocutaneous involvement. All required intensive care, all received systemic corticosteroids, 8 (72.7%) required mechanical ventilation, 2 (18.2%) required mechanical cardiovascular circulatory support, and none received intravenous immunoglobulin. Two (18.2%) died or were discharged to hospice. CONCLUSIONS: MIS-A is a severe but likely underrecognized complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Improved recognition of MIS-A is needed to quantify its burden and identify populations at highest risk.

2.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(5): 649-654, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1726736

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Identifying occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care workers (HCWs) can improve HCW and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs in a large health care system. DESIGN: A logistic regression model was fitted to data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in April to June 2020, linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. SETTING: A large academic health care system in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Employees and medical staff members elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all HCWs as part of a quality initiative and completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential ZIP code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to HCWs or patients who tested positive on polymerase chain reaction test, and use of personal protective equipment as potential risk factors for infection. The outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. RESULTS: Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4% to 4.3%) (positive, n = 582) among the 10 275 HCWs (35% of the Emory Healthcare workforce) who participated in the survey. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9 [CI, 1.4 to 2.6]; 77 positive persons [10.3%]) and community COVID-19 incidence (aOR, 1.5 [CI, 1.0 to 2.2]) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR, 2.1 [CI, 1.7 to 2.6]; 238 positive persons [8.3%]). LIMITATIONS: Participation rates were modest and key workplace exposures, including job and infection prevention practices, changed rapidly in the early phases of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Demographic and community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19-positive person and Black race, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs than is exposure in the workplace. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Emory COVID-19 Response Collaborative.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19/ethnology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Georgia/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/ethnology , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/ethnology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology
3.
Crit Care Med ; 50(2): 245-255, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672309

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between time period of hospitalization and hospital mortality among critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Observational cohort study from March 6, 2020, to January 31, 2021. SETTING: ICUs at four hospitals within an academic health center network in Atlanta, GA. PATIENTS: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to an ICU during the study period (i.e., Surge 1: March to April, Lull 1: May to June, Surge 2: July to August, Lull 2: September to November, Surge 3: December to January). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,686 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to an ICU during the study period, all-cause hospital mortality was 29.7%. Mortality differed significantly over time: 28.7% in Surge 1, 21.3% in Lull 1, 25.2% in Surge 2, 30.2% in Lull 2, 34.7% in Surge 3 (p = 0.007). Mortality was significantly associated with 1) preexisting risk factors (older age, race, ethnicity, lower body mass index, higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, admission from a nursing home); 2) clinical status at ICU admission (higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, higher d-dimer, higher C-reactive protein); and 3) ICU interventions (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, inhaled vasodilators). After adjusting for baseline and clinical variables, there was a significantly increased risk of mortality associated with admission during Lull 2 (relative risk, 1.37 [95% CI = 1.03-1.81]) and Surge 3 (relative risk, 1.35 [95% CI = 1.04-1.77]) as compared to Surge 1. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased experience and evidence-based treatments, the risk of death for patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019 was highest during the fall and winter of 2020. Reasons for this increased mortality are not clear.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/trends , Intensive Care Units/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Academic Medical Centers , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL