Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(5): e2211967, 2022 May 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1843825

ABSTRACT

Importance: Identifying the associations between severe COVID-19 and individual cardiovascular conditions in pediatric patients may inform treatment. Objective: To assess the association between previous or preexisting cardiovascular conditions and severity of COVID-19 in pediatric patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from a large, multicenter, electronic health records database in the US. The cohort included patients aged 2 months to 17 years with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 or a diagnosis code indicating infection or exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at 85 health systems between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Exposures: Diagnoses for 26 cardiovascular conditions between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 (before infection with SARS-CoV-2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19, defined as need for supplemental oxygen or in-hospital death. Mixed-effects, random intercept logistic regression modeling assessed the significance and magnitude of associations between 26 cardiovascular conditions and COVID-19 severity. Multiple comparison adjustment was performed using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure. Results: The study comprised 171 416 pediatric patients; the median age was 8 years (IQR, 2-14 years), and 50.28% were male. Of these patients, 17 065 (9.96%) had severe COVID-19. The random intercept model showed that the following cardiovascular conditions were associated with severe COVID-19: cardiac arrest (odds ratio [OR], 9.92; 95% CI, 6.93-14.20), cardiogenic shock (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.90-4.96), heart surgery (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.26-4.08), cardiopulmonary disease (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.56-2.34), heart failure (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.46-2.26), hypotension (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.38-1.79), nontraumatic cerebral hemorrhage (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.24-1.91), pericarditis (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.94), simple biventricular defects (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.62), venous embolism and thrombosis (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.73), other hypertensive disorders (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.63), complex biventricular defects (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54), and essential primary hypertension (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38). Furthermore, 194 of 258 patients (75.19%) with a history of cardiac arrest were younger than 12 years. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that some previous or preexisting cardiovascular conditions are associated with increased severity of COVID-19 among pediatric patients in the US and that morbidity may be increased among individuals children younger than 12 years with previous cardiac arrest.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Arrest , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Heart Arrest/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Child Care Health Dev ; 2022 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1819879

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an unprecedented societal and healthcare global crisis. Associated changes in regular healthcare provision and lifestyle through societal lockdown are likely to have affected clinical management and well-being of children/young people with neurodisability, who often require complex packages of multidisciplinary care. METHODS: We surveyed 108 families of children/young people with severe physical neurodisability and multiple comorbidities to understand how the pandemic had affected acute clinical status, routine healthcare provision, schooling and family mental and social well-being. RESULTS: A significant proportion of families reported missing hospital appointments and routine therapy, with subsequent worsening of symptoms and function. Families additionally described worsening stress and anxiety during the pandemic, regardless of their baseline level of socio-economic deprivation. CONCLUSION: This highlights the profound effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on health and function in young people with severe neurodisabilities and emphasizes the clear need to better understand how to support this vulnerable population moving forwards.

3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(10): 378-383, 2022 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1737448

ABSTRACT

On October 29, 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization for children aged 5-11 years in the United States.† For a successful immunization program, both access to and uptake of the vaccine are needed. Fifteen million doses were initially made available to pediatric providers to ensure the broadest possible access for the estimated 28 million eligible children aged 5-11 years, especially those in high social vulnerability index (SVI)§ communities. Initial supply was strategically distributed to maximize vaccination opportunities for U.S. children aged 5-11 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage among persons aged 12-17 years has lagged (1), and vaccine confidence has been identified as a concern among parents and caregivers (2). Therefore, COVID-19 provider access and early vaccination coverage among children aged 5-11 years in high and low SVI communities were examined during November 1, 2021-January 18, 2022. As of November 29, 2021 (4 weeks after program launch), 38,732 providers were enrolled, and 92% of U.S. children aged 5-11 years lived within 5 miles of an active provider. As of January 18, 2022 (11 weeks after program launch), 39,786 providers had administered 13.3 million doses. First dose coverage at 4 weeks after launch was 15.0% (10.5% and 17.5% in high and low SVI areas, respectively; rate ratio [RR] = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.60-0.78), and at 11 weeks was 27.7% (21.2% and 29.0% in high and low SVI areas, respectively; RR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.68-0.84). Overall series completion at 11 weeks after launch was 19.1% (13.7% and 21.7% in high and low SVI areas, respectively; RR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.58-0.77). Pharmacies administered 46.4% of doses to this age group, including 48.7% of doses in high SVI areas and 44.4% in low SVI areas. Although COVID-19 vaccination coverage rates were low, particularly in high SVI areas, first dose coverage improved over time. Additional outreach is critical, especially in high SVI areas, to improve vaccine confidence and increase coverage rates among children aged 5-11 years.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Programs , Vaccination Coverage , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Pharmacies/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Social Vulnerability
4.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 8(2): e32680, 2022 02 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561100

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The US public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required contact tracing and symptom monitoring at an unprecedented scale. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several partners created the Text Illness Monitoring (TIM) platform in 2015 to assist US public health jurisdictions with symptom monitoring for potential novel influenza virus outbreaks. Since May 2020, 142 federal, state, and local public health agencies have deployed TIM for COVID-19 symptom monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility, benefits, and challenges of TIM to help guide decision-making for improvements and expansion to support future public health emergency response efforts. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey of previous and current TIM administrative users (admin users) from November 28 through December 21, 2020. Closed- and open-ended questions inquired about the onboarding process, decision to use TIM, groups monitored with TIM, comparison of TIM to other symptom monitoring systems, technical challenges and satisfaction with TIM, and user support. A total of 1479 admin users were invited to participate. RESULTS: A total of 97 admin users from 43 agencies responded to the survey. Most admin users represented the Indian Health Service (35/97, 36%), state health departments (26/97, 27%), and local or county health departments (18/97, 19%), and almost all were current users of TIM (85/94, 90%). Among the 43 agencies represented, 11 (26%) used TIM for monitoring staff exclusively, 13 (30%) monitored community members exclusively, and 19 (44%) monitored both staff and community members. Agencies most frequently used TIM to monitor symptom development in contacts of cases among community members (28/43, 65%), followed by symptom development among staff (27/43, 63%) and among staff contacts of cases (24/43, 56%). Agencies also reported using TIM to monitor patients with COVID-19 for the worsening of symptoms among staff (21/43, 49%) and community members (18/43, 42%). When asked to compare TIM to previous monitoring systems, 78% (40/51) of respondents rated TIM more favorably than their previous monitoring system, 20% (10/51) said there was no difference, and 2% (1/51) rated the previous monitoring system more favorably than TIM. Most respondents found TIM favorable in terms of time burden, staff burden, timeliness of the data, and the ability to monitor large population sizes. TIM compared negatively to other systems in terms of effort to enroll participants (ie, persons TIM monitors) and accuracy of the data. Most respondents (76/85, 89%) reported that they would highly or somewhat recommend TIM to others for symptom monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of TIM showed that agencies used TIM for a variety of purposes and rated TIM favorably compared to previously used monitoring systems. We also identified opportunities to improve TIM; for example, enhancing the flexibility of alert deliveries would better meet admin users' varying needs. We also suggest continuous program evaluation practices to assess and respond to implementation gaps.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Child Care Health Dev ; 2021 Nov 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1511290

ABSTRACT

AIM: To evaluate clinicians' perspectives on the impact of 'lockdown' during the COVID-19 pandemic for children and young people with severe physical neurodisability and their families. METHOD: Framework analysis of comments from families during a recent service review was used to code the themes discussed according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and interpreted into emergent themes to summarize the impact of lockdown (Stage 1). They were presented to a clinician focus group for discussion (consultants and physiotherapists working in a specialist motor disorders service, [Stage 2]). RESULTS: Three overarching themes 'Uncertainty and Anxiety', 'Exacerbation of Existing Inequalities' and 'Care Provision: Reaction, Adaptation, and Innovation' summed up the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health and well-being in children and young people with neurodisability and their families. All themes were influenced by time. INTERPRETATION: This study reflects clinician's perceptions of family experiences of the pandemic and lockdown. Significant impact is apparent in the entire U.K. population, but the complexity of care needs for children with physical neurodisability exacerbates this. Lobbying for government policy is vital to ensure that all children, and in particular those with significant health and social care needs, are protected and continue to access services. During the restoration and recovery phase of the pandemic, there is a need for service reconfiguration that utilizes what we have learned and is adaptive to individual family circumstances.

6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(9): e3066-e3073, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that some persons previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lack detectable immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. We aimed to determine the proportion IgG seronegative and predictors for seronegativity among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We analyzed serologic data collected from healthcare workers and first responders in New York City and the Detroit metropolitan area with a history of a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result and who were tested for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at least 2 weeks after symptom onset. RESULTS: Of 2547 persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 160 (6.3%) were seronegative. Of 2112 previously symptomatic persons, the proportion seronegative slightly increased from 14 to 90 days post symptom onset (P = .06). The proportion seronegative ranged from 0% among 79 persons previously hospitalized to 11.0% among 308 persons with asymptomatic infections. In a multivariable model, persons who took immunosuppressive medications were more likely to be seronegative (31.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-64.7%), while participants of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic White; 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.8%), with severe obesity (vs under/normal weight; 3.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-8.6%), or with more symptoms were less likely to be seronegative. CONCLUSIONS: In our population with previous RT-PCR-confirmed infection, approximately 1 in 16 persons lacked IgG antibodies. Absence of antibodies varied independently by illness severity, race/ethnicity, obesity, and immunosuppressive drug therapy. The proportion seronegative remained relatively stable among persons tested up to 90 days post symptom onset.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Cohort Studies , Humans , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
7.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(10): 2016-2020.e2, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440150

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination of residents and staff in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), including assisted living (AL) and other residential care (RC) communities. We aimed to assess vaccine uptake in these communities and identify characteristics that might impact uptake. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: AL/RC communities in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program that had ≥1 on-site vaccination clinic during December 18, 2020-April 21, 2021. METHODS: We estimated uptake using the cumulative number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered and normalizing by the number of AL/RC community beds. We estimated the percentage of residents vaccinated in 3 states using AL census counts. We linked community vaccine administration data with county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) measures to calculate median vaccine uptake by SVI tertile. RESULTS: In AL communities, a median of 67 residents [interquartile range (IQR): 48-90] and 32 staff members (IQR: 15-60) per 100 beds received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine at the first on-site clinic; in RC, a median of 8 residents (IQR: 5-10) and 5 staff members (IQR: 2-12) per 10 beds received a first dose. Among 3 states with available AL resident census data, median resident first-dose uptake at the first clinic was 93% (IQR: 85-108) in Connecticut, 85% in Georgia (IQR: 70-102), and 78% (IQR: 56-91) in Tennessee. Among both residents and staff, cumulative first-dose vaccine uptake increased with increasing social vulnerability related to housing type and transportation. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 vaccination of residents and staff in LTCFs is a public health priority. On-site clinics may help to increase vaccine uptake, particularly when transportation may be a barrier. Ensuring steady access to COVID-19 vaccine in LTCFs following the conclusion of the Pharmacy Partnership is critical to maintaining high vaccination coverage among residents and staff.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharmacy , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Long-Term Care , SARS-CoV-2
8.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(35): 1206-1213, 2021 Sep 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1413204

ABSTRACT

Although severe COVID-19 illness and hospitalization are more common among adults, these outcomes can occur in adolescents (1). Nearly one third of adolescents aged 12-17 years hospitalized with COVID-19 during March 2020-April 2021 required intensive care, and 5% of those hospitalized required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (2). On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged 16-17 years; on May 10, 2021, the EUA was expanded to include adolescents aged 12-15 years; and on August 23, 2021, FDA granted approval of the vaccine for persons aged ≥16 years. To assess progress in adolescent COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, CDC assessed coverage with ≥1 dose* and completion of the 2-dose vaccination series† among adolescents aged 12-17 years using vaccine administration data for 49 U.S. states (all except Idaho) and the District of Columbia (DC) during December 14, 2020-July 31, 2021. As of July 31, 2021, COVID-19 vaccination coverage among U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years was 42.4% for ≥1 dose and 31.9% for series completion. Vaccination coverage with ≥1 dose varied by state (range = 20.2% [Mississippi] to 70.1% [Vermont]) and for series completion (range = 10.7% [Mississippi] to 60.3% [Vermont]). By age group, 36.0%, 40.9%, and 50.6% of adolescents aged 12-13, 14-15, and 16-17 years, respectively, received ≥1 dose; 25.4%, 30.5%, and 40.3%, respectively, completed the vaccine series. Improving vaccination coverage and implementing COVID-19 prevention strategies are crucial to reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality among adolescents and to facilitate safer reopening of schools for in-person learning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Female , Humans , Male , United States/epidemiology
9.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(10): 2009-2015, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356280

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if facility-level vaccination after an initial vaccination clinic was independently associated with COVID-19 incidence adjusted for other factors in January 2021 among nursing home residents. DESIGN: Ecological analysis of data from the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and from the CDC's Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: CMS-certified nursing homes participating in both NHSN and the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. METHODS: A multivariable, random intercepts, negative binomial model was applied to contrast COVID-19 incidence rates among residents living in facilities with an initial vaccination clinic during the week ending January 3, 2021 (n = 2843), vs those living in facilities with no vaccination clinic reported up to and including the week ending January 10, 2021 (n = 3216). Model covariates included bed size, resident SARS-CoV-2 testing, staff with COVID-19, cumulative COVID-19 among residents, residents admitted with COVID-19, community county incidence, and county social vulnerability index (SVI). RESULTS: In December 2020 and January 2021, incidence of COVID-19 among nursing home residents declined to the lowest point since reporting began in May, diverged from the pattern in community cases, and began dropping before vaccination occurred. Comparing week 3 following an initial vaccination clinic vs week 2, the adjusted reduction in COVID-19 rate in vaccinated facilities was 27% greater than the reduction in facilities where vaccination clinics had not yet occurred (95% confidence interval: 14%-38%, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Vaccination of residents contributed to the decline in COVID-19 incidence in nursing homes; however, other factors also contributed. The decline in COVID-19 was evident prior to widespread vaccination, highlighting the benefit of a multifaced approach to prevention including continued use of recommended screening, testing, and infection prevention practices as well as vaccination to keep residents in nursing homes safe.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Incidence , Nursing Homes , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination
10.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(22): 818-824, 2021 Jun 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257246

ABSTRACT

Disparities in vaccination coverage by social vulnerability, defined as social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes, were noted during the first 2.5 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which began during mid-December 2020 (1). As vaccine eligibility and availability continue to expand, assuring equitable coverage for disproportionately affected communities remains a priority. CDC examined COVID-19 vaccine administration and 2018 CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) data to ascertain whether inequities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage with respect to county-level SVI have persisted, overall and by urbanicity. Vaccination coverage was defined as the number of persons aged ≥18 years (adults) who had received ≥1 dose of any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine divided by the total adult population in a specified SVI category.† SVI was examined overall and by its four themes (socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, racial/ethnic minority status and language, and housing type and transportation). Counties were categorized into SVI quartiles, in which quartile 1 (Q1) represented the lowest level of vulnerability and quartile 4 (Q4), the highest. Trends in vaccination coverage were assessed by SVI quartile and urbanicity, which was categorized as large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan (areas surrounding large cities, e.g., suburban), medium and small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan counties.§ During December 14, 2020-May 1, 2021, disparities in vaccination coverage by SVI increased, especially in large fringe metropolitan (e.g., suburban) and nonmetropolitan counties. By May 1, 2021, vaccination coverage was lower among adults living in counties with the highest overall SVI; differences were most pronounced in large fringe metropolitan (Q4 coverage = 45.0% versus Q1 coverage = 61.7%) and nonmetropolitan (Q4 = 40.6% versus Q1 = 52.9%) counties. Vaccination coverage disparities were largest for two SVI themes: socioeconomic status (Q4 = 44.3% versus Q1 = 61.0%) and household composition and disability (Q4 = 42.0% versus Q1 = 60.1%). Outreach efforts, including expanding public health messaging tailored to local populations and increasing vaccination access, could help increase vaccination coverage in high-SVI counties.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Vulnerable Populations/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cities/epidemiology , Humans , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(20): 759-764, 2021 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1237006

ABSTRACT

Approximately 60 million persons in the United States live in rural counties, representing almost one fifth (19.3%) of the population.* In September 2020, COVID-19 incidence (cases per 100,000 population) in rural counties surpassed that in urban counties (1). Rural communities often have a higher proportion of residents who lack health insurance, live with comorbidities or disabilities, are aged ≥65 years, and have limited access to health care facilities with intensive care capabilities, which places these residents at increased risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality (2,3). To better understand COVID-19 vaccination disparities across the urban-rural continuum, CDC analyzed county-level vaccine administration data among adults aged ≥18 years who received their first dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or a single dose of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) during December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021 in 50 U.S. jurisdictions (49 states and the District of Columbia [DC]). Adult COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (38.9%) than in urban counties (45.7%) overall and among adults aged 18-64 years (29.1% rural, 37.7% urban), those aged ≥65 years (67.6% rural, 76.1% urban), women (41.7% rural, 48.4% urban), and men (35.3% rural, 41.9% urban). Vaccination coverage varied among jurisdictions: 36 jurisdictions had higher coverage in urban counties, five had higher coverage in rural counties, and five had similar coverage (i.e., within 1%) in urban and rural counties; in four jurisdictions with no rural counties, the urban-rural comparison could not be assessed. A larger proportion of persons in the most rural counties (14.6%) traveled for vaccination to nonadjacent counties (i.e., farther from their county of residence) compared with persons in the most urban counties (10.3%). As availability of COVID-19 vaccines expands, public health practitioners should continue collaborating with health care providers, pharmacies, employers, faith leaders, and other community partners to identify and address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in rural areas (2).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Rural Population/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
13.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(19): 725-730, 2021 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227232

ABSTRACT

Compared with other age groups, older adults (defined here as persons aged ≥65 years) are at higher risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and have therefore been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). Ensuring access to vaccines for older adults has been a focus of federal, state, and local response efforts, and CDC has been monitoring vaccination coverage to identify and address disparities among subpopulations of older adults (2). Vaccine administration data submitted to CDC were analyzed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination initiation among adults aged ≥65 years by demographic characteristics and overall. Characteristics of counties with low vaccination initiation rates were quantified using indicators of social vulnerability data from the 2019 American Community Survey.* During December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021, nationwide, a total of 42,736,710 (79.1%) older adults had initiated vaccination. The initiation rate was higher among men than among women and varied by state. On average, counties with low vaccination initiation rates (<50% of older adults having received at least 1 vaccine dose), compared with those with high rates (≥75%), had higher percentages of older adults without a computer, living in poverty, without Internet access, and living alone. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions in partnerships with communities should continue to identify and implement strategies to improve access to COVID-19 vaccination for older adults, such as assistance with scheduling vaccination appointments and transportation to vaccination sites, or vaccination at home if needed for persons who are homebound.† Monitoring demographic and social factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine access for older adults and prioritizing efforts to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccine are needed to ensure high coverage among this group.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Demography , Female , Humans , Male , Social Factors , United States/epidemiology
15.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(3): 823-834, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1100027

ABSTRACT

Healthcare personnel are recognized to be at higher risk for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We conducted a serologic survey in 15 hospitals and 56 nursing homes across Rhode Island, USA, during July 17-August 28, 2020. Overall seropositivity among 9,863 healthcare personnel was 4.6% (95% CI 4.2%-5.0%) but varied 4-fold between hospital personnel (3.1%, 95% CI 2.7%-3.5%) and nursing home personnel (13.1%, 95% CI 11.5%-14.9%). Within nursing homes, prevalence was highest among personnel working in coronavirus disease units (24.1%; 95% CI 20.6%-27.8%). Adjusted analysis showed that in hospitals, nurses and receptionists/medical assistants had a higher likelihood of seropositivity than physicians. In nursing homes, nursing assistants and social workers/case managers had higher likelihoods of seropositivity than occupational/physical/speech therapists. Nursing home personnel in all occupations had elevated seropositivity compared with hospital counterparts. Additional mitigation strategies are needed to protect nursing home personnel from infection, regardless of occupation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Odds Ratio , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Rhode Island/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Young Adult
16.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(5): 178-182, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063531

ABSTRACT

Residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), because they live and work in congregate settings, are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). In particular, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), LTCFs that provide skilled nursing care and rehabilitation services for persons with complex medical needs, have been documented settings of COVID-19 outbreaks (3). In addition, residents of LTCFs might be at increased risk for severe outcomes because of their advanced age or the presence of underlying chronic medical conditions (4). As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that residents and staff members of LTCFs be offered vaccination in the initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) in the United States (5). In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program* to facilitate on-site vaccination of residents and staff members at enrolled LTCFs. To evaluate early receipt of vaccine during the first month of the program, the number of eligible residents and staff members in enrolled SNFs was estimated using resident census data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN†) and staffing data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll-Based Journal.§ Among 11,460 SNFs with at least one vaccination clinic during the first month of the program (December 18, 2020-January 17, 2021), an estimated median of 77.8% of residents (interquartile range [IQR] = 61.3%- 93.1%) and a median of 37.5% (IQR = 23.2%- 56.8%) of staff members per facility received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. The program achieved moderately high coverage among residents; however, continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among staff members in SNFs and other long-term care settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Pharmacy/organization & administration , Public-Private Sector Partnerships , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Long-Term Care , Program Evaluation , United States/epidemiology
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(5): 174-177, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063530

ABSTRACT

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) were authorized for emergency use in the United States for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* Because of limited initial vaccine supply, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prioritized vaccination of health care personnel† and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCF) during the first phase of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program (1). Both vaccines require 2 doses to complete the series. Data on vaccines administered during December 14, 2020-January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021, were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, including sex, age, and race/ethnicity, of persons who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., initiated vaccination). During this period, 12,928,749 persons in the United States in 64 jurisdictions and five federal entities§ initiated COVID-19 vaccination. Data on sex were reported for 97.0%, age for 99.9%, and race/ethnicity for 51.9% of vaccine recipients. Among persons who received the first vaccine dose and had reported demographic data, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were non-Hispanic White (White). More complete reporting of race and ethnicity data at the provider and jurisdictional levels is critical to ensure rapid detection of and response to potential disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. As the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program expands, public health officials should ensure that vaccine is administered efficiently and equitably within each successive vaccination priority category, especially among those at highest risk for infection and severe adverse health outcomes, many of whom are non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and Hispanic persons (2,3).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Programs , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Program Evaluation , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
18.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(3): 796-804, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045534

ABSTRACT

We conducted a serologic survey in public service agencies in New York City, New York, USA, during May-July 2020 to determine prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among first responders. Of 22,647 participants, 22.5% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Seroprevalence for police and firefighters was similar to overall seroprevalence; seroprevalence was highest in correctional staff (39.2%) and emergency medical technicians (38.3%) and lowest in laboratory technicians (10.1%) and medicolegal death investigators (10.8%). Adjusted analyses demonstrated association between seropositivity and exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive household members (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.52 [95% CI 3.19-3.87]), non-Hispanic Black race or ethnicity (aOR 1.50 [95% CI 1.33-1.68]), and severe obesity (aOR 1.31 [95% CI 1.05-1.65]). Consistent glove use (aOR 1.19 [95% CI 1.06-1.33]) increased likelihood of seropositivity; use of other personal protective equipment had no association. Infection control measures, including vaccination, should be prioritized for frontline workers.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Responders/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Obesity/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment , Prevalence , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Young Adult
19.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; 14(5): 658-669, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1029702

ABSTRACT

N95 respirators are personal protective equipment most often used to control exposures to infections transmitted via the airborne route. Supplies of N95 respirators can become depleted during pandemics or when otherwise in high demand. In this paper, we offer strategies for optimizing supplies of N95 respirators in health care settings while maximizing the level of protection offered to health care personnel when there is limited supply in the United States during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic. The strategies are intended for use by professionals who manage respiratory protection programs, occupational health services, and infection prevention programs in health care facilities to protect health care personnel from job-related risks of exposure to infectious respiratory illnesses. Consultation with federal, state, and local public health officials is also important. We use the framework of surge capacity and the occupational health and safety hierarchy of controls approach to discuss specific engineering control, administrative control, and personal protective equipment measures that may help in optimizing N95 respirator supplies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , N95 Respirators/supply & distribution , Pandemics/prevention & control , Resource Allocation/methods , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , N95 Respirators/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Resource Allocation/statistics & numerical data , United States
20.
Am J Transplant ; 20(11): 3051-3060, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-965967

ABSTRACT

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTr) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are expected to have poorer outcomes compared to nontransplant patients because of immunosuppression and comorbidities. The clinical characteristics of 47 SOTr (38 kidneys and 9 nonkidney organs) were compared to 100 consecutive hospitalized nontransplant controls. Twelve of 47 SOTr managed as outpatients were subsequently excluded from the outcome analyses to avoid potential selection bias. Chronic kidney disease (89% vs 57% P = .0007), diabetes (66% vs 33% P = .0007), and hypertension (94% vs 72% P = .006) were more common in the 35 hospitalized SOTr compared to controls. Diarrhea (54% vs 17%, P < .0001) was more frequent in SOTr. Primary composite outcome (escalation to intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital all-cause mortality) was comparable between SOTr and controls (40% vs 48%, odds ratio [OR] 0.72 confidence interval [CI] [0.33-1.58] P = .42), despite more comorbidities in SOTr. Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy occurred in 20% of SOTr compared to 4% of controls (OR 6 CI [1.64-22] P = .007). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that increasing age and clinical severity were associated with mortality. Transplant status itself was not associated with mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Graft Rejection/prevention & control , Organ Transplantation , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Transplant Recipients , Aged , Comorbidity , Female , Graft Rejection/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL