All-cause versus cause-specific excess deaths for estimating influenza-associated mortality in Denmark, Spain, and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza-associated excess mortality estimates can be timely and provide useful information on the severity of an epidemic. This methodology can be leveraged during an emergency response or pandemic. METHOD: For Denmark, Spain, and the United States, we estimated age-stratified excess mortality for (i) all-cause, (ii) respiratory and circulatory, (iii) circulatory, (iv) respiratory, and (v) pneumonia, and influenza causes of death for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 influenza seasons. We quantified differences between the countries and seasonal excess mortality estimates and the death categories. We used a time-series linear regression model accounting for time and seasonal trends using mortality data from 2010 through 2017. RESULTS: The respective periods of weekly excess mortality for all-cause and cause-specific deaths were similar in their chronological patterns. Seasonal all-cause excess mortality rates for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 influenza seasons were 4.7 (3.3-6.1) and 14.3 (13.0-15.6) per 100,000 population, for the United States; 20.3 (15.8-25.0) and 24.0 (19.3-28.7) per 100,000 population for Denmark; and 22.9 (18.9-26.9) and 52.9 (49.1-56.8) per 100,000 population for Spain. Seasonal respiratory and circulatory excess mortality estimates were two to three times lower than the all-cause estimates. DISCUSSION: We observed fewer influenza-associated deaths when we examined cause-specific death categories compared with all-cause deaths and observed the same trends in peaks in deaths with all death causes. Because all-cause deaths are more available, these models can be used to monitor virus activity in near real time. This approach may contribute to the development of timely mortality monitoring systems during public health emergencies.

Cardiovascular Outcomes of Patients Referred to Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (HBCR) has been considered a reasonable alternative to Center-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (CBCR) in patients with established cardiovascular disease, especially in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of patients referred to HBCR remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 269 patients referred to HBCR at Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (PVAMC). From November 2017 to March 2020, 427 patients were eligible and referred for Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) at PVAMC. Of total patients, 158 patients were referred to CBCR and 269 patients to HBCR based on patient and/or clinician preference. The analysis of outcomes was focused on HBCR patients. We compared outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR) from 3 to 12 months of the referral date. HBCR consisted of face-to-face entry exam with exercise prescription, weekly phone calls for education and exercise monitoring, with adjustments where applicable, for 12-weeks and an exit exam. Primary outcome was composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, separately. We used cox proportional methods to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI. We adjusted for imbalanced characteristics at baseline: smoking, left ventricular ejection fraction and CABG status. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients (mean age: 72, 98% Male) were referred to HBCR, however, only 157 (58%) patients attended HBCR. The primary outcome occurred in 30 patients (19.1%) in the HBCR group and 30 patients (30%) in the Non-HBCR group (adjusted HR=0.56, CI 0.33-0.95, P=.03). All-cause mortality occurred in 6.4% of patients in the HBCR group and 13% patients in the Non-HBCR group 3 to 12 months after HBCR referral (adjusted HR=0.43, CI 0.18-1.0, P= .05). There was no difference in cardiovascular hospitalizations (HBCR: 5.7% vs Non-HBCR: 10%, adjusted HR 0.57, CI 0.22-1.4, P= .23) or all cause hospitalizations at 3 to 12 months between the groups (HBCR: 12.7% vs Non-HBCR: 21%, adjusted HR 0.53, CI 0.28-1.01, P= .05). CONCLUSION: Completion of HBCR among referred patients was associated with a lower risk of the combined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations up to 12 months. Based on the outcomes, HBCR is a reasonable option that can improve access to CR for patients who are not candidates of or cannot attend CBCR. Randomized-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Excess All-Cause Deaths during Coronavirus Disease Pandemic, Japan, January-May 20201.

To provide insight into the mortality burden of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Japan, we estimated the excess all-cause deaths for each week during the pandemic, January-May 2020, by prefecture and age group. We applied quasi-Poisson regression models to vital statistics data. Excess deaths were expressed as the range of differences between the observed and expected number of all-cause deaths and the 95% upper bound of the 1-sided prediction interval. A total of 208-4,322 all-cause excess deaths at the national level indicated a 0.03%-0.72% excess in the observed number of deaths. Prefecture and age structure consistency between the reported COVID-19 deaths and our estimates was weak, suggesting the need to use cause-specific analyses to distinguish between direct and indirect consequences of COVID-19.