Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
2.
Am J Public Health ; 111(S2): S141-S148, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1334834

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Cause of Death/trends , Censuses , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , Data Collection/methods , Data Collection/statistics & numerical data , Mortality/trends , Vital Statistics , Forecasting , Humans , United States
5.
Public Health ; 189: 101-103, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-927064

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Mortality/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sex Distribution , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci ; 76(3): e68-e74, 2021 02 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-766609

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Aging , COVID-19/mortality , Models, Statistical , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Body Mass Index , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , Comorbidity , Computer Simulation , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Obesity/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
7.
BMJ ; 370: m2980, 2020 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-691120

ABSTRACT

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 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 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: 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. 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 fourth 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.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Drug Combinations , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Network Meta-Analysis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
9.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(8): 2296-2303, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-429473

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Coronavirus Infections , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Stress, Psychological , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./standards , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Public Health/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL