Estimating Older Adult Mortality From COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to employ simulations to model the probability of mortality from COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus) for older adults in the United States given at best and at worst cases. METHODS: This study first examined current epidemiological reports to better understand the risk of mortality from COVID-19. Past epidemiological studies from severe acute respiratory syndrome were also examined given similar virology. Next, at best and at worst mortality cases were considered with the goal of estimating the probability of mortality. To accomplish this for the general population, microdata from the National Health Interview Survey pooled sample (2016, 2017, and 2018 public-use NHIS with a sample of 34,881 adults at least 60 years of age) were utilized. Primary measures included age and health status (diabetes, body mass index, and hypertension). A logit regression with 100,000 simulations was employed to derive the estimates and probabilities. RESULTS: Age exhibited a positive association for the probability of death with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.22 (p < .05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.42). A positive association was also found for body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.03, p < .01, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04) and hypertension (OR 1.36, p < .01, 95% CI: 1.09-1.66) for the at best case. Diabetes was significant but only for the at best case. DISCUSSION: This study found mortality increased with age and was notable for the 74-79 age group for the at best case and the 70-79 age group of the at worst case. Obesity was also important and suggested a higher risk for mortality. Hypertension also exhibited greater risk but the increase was minimal. Given the volume of information and misinformation, these findings can be applied by health professionals, gerontologists, social workers, and local policymakers to better inform older adults about mortality risks and, in the process, reestablish public trust.

Measuring All-Cause Mortality With the Census Numident File.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of population-level US mortality data in the US Census Bureau Numerical Identification file (Numident) and describe the details of the mortality information as well as the novel person-level linkages available when using the Census Numident. METHODS: We compared all-cause mortality in the Census Numident to published vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We provide detailed information on the linkage of the Census Numident to other Census Bureau survey, administrative, and economic data. RESULTS: Death counts in the Census Numident are similar to those from published mortality vital statistics. Yearly comparisons show that the Census Numident captures more deaths since 1997, and coverage is slightly lower going back in time. Weekly estimates show similar trends from both data sets. CONCLUSIONS: The Census Numident is a high-quality and timely source of data to study all-cause mortality. The Census Bureau makes available a vast and rich set of restricted-use, individual-level data linked to the Census Numident for researchers to use. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS: The Census Numident linked to data available from the Census Bureau provides infrastructure for doing evidence-based public health policy research on mortality.

Non-COVID-19 excess deaths by age and gender in the United States during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare systems, creating an environment by which deaths have occurred that are not directly due to COVID-19, but have occurred owing to the healthcare and societal environment resulting from COVID-19. The objective of this research is to quantify such excess deaths, partitioned by age group and gender. STUDY DESIGN: This is a data analysis. METHODS: Excess deaths by age and gender are estimated using provisional death data available from the Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) over the time period from March 1, 2020 through May 30, 2020. Previous year fatality and population data are used as the benchmark. RESULTS: Several of the eighteen age and gender cohorts experienced statistically significant excess deaths. The results also indicate that COVID-19 has been protective for one of the age and gender cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: There have been more excess deaths in several age group and gender cohorts during the first three months of the pandemic, beyond direct deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. These non-COVID-19 excess deaths are most apparent in the 25- to 44-year age group for women and 15- to 54-year age group for men. Further research is needed to assess the cause of such excess deaths and introduce safeguards to reduce such deaths in the future.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Americans' COVID-19 Stress, Coping, and Adherence to CDC Guidelines.

IMPORTANCE: Documenting Americans' stress responses to an unprecedented pandemic and their degree of adherence to CDC guidelines is essential for mental health interventions and policy-making. OBJECTIVE: To provide the first snapshot of immediate impact of COVID-19 on Americans' stress, coping, and guideline adherence. DESIGN: Data were collected from an online workers' platform for survey research (Amazon's Mechanical Turk) from April 7 to 9, 2020. The current data represents the baseline of a longitudinal study. Best practices for ensuring high-quality data were employed. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who are 18 years of age or older, living in the USA, and English-speaking were eligible for the study. Of 1086 unique responses, 1015 completed responses are included. SETTING: Population-based. MAIN OUTCOMES: Exposure to and stressfulness of COVID-19 stressors, coping strategies, and adherence to CDC guidelines. RESULTS: The sample was 53.9% women (n = 547), with an average age of 38.9 years (SD = 13.50, range = 18-88), most of whom were White (n = 836, 82.4%), non-Hispanic (n = 929, 91.5%), and straight/heterosexual (n = 895, 88.2%); 40% were currently married (n = 407), and 21.6% (n = 219) were caregivers. About half (50.5%) endorsed having at least "mostly" enough money to meet their needs. Respondents' locations across the USA ranged from 18.5% in the Northeast to 37.8% in the South. The most commonly experienced stressors were reading/hearing about the severity and contagiousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about length of quarantine and social distancing requirements, and changes to social and daily personal care routines. Financial concerns were rated most stressful. Younger age, female gender, and caregiver status increased risk for stressor exposure and greater degree of stressfulness. The most frequently reported strategies to manage stress were distraction, active coping, and seeking emotional social support. CDC guideline adherence was generally high, but several key social distancing and hygiene behaviors showed suboptimal adherence, particularly for men and younger adults. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Americans have high COVID-19 stress exposure and some demographic subgroups appear particularly vulnerable to stress effects. Subgroups less likely to adhere to CDC guidelines may benefit from targeted information campaigns. these findings may guide mental health interventions and inform policy-making regarding implications of specific public health measures.