COVID-19 Surveillance After Expiration of the Public Health Emergency Declaration - United States, May 11, 2023.

On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared, under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, a U.S. public health emergency because of the emergence of a novel virus, SARS-CoV-2.* After 13 renewals, the public health emergency will expire on May 11, 2023. Authorizations to collect certain public health data will expire on that date as well. Monitoring the impact of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of prevention and control strategies remains a public health priority, and a number of surveillance indicators have been identified to facilitate ongoing monitoring. After expiration of the public health emergency, COVID-19-associated hospital admission levels will be the primary indicator of COVID-19 trends to help guide community and personal decisions related to risk and prevention behaviors; the percentage of COVID-19-associated deaths among all reported deaths, based on provisional death certificate data, will be the primary indicator used to monitor COVID-19 mortality. Emergency department (ED) visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis and the percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, derived from an established sentinel network, will help detect early changes in trends. National genomic surveillance will continue to be used to estimate SARS-CoV-2 variant proportions; wastewater surveillance and traveler-based genomic surveillance will also continue to be used to monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants. Disease severity and hospitalization-related outcomes are monitored via sentinel surveillance and large health care databases. Monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination coverage, vaccine effectiveness (VE), and vaccine safety will also continue. Integrated strategies for surveillance of COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses can further guide prevention efforts. COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and deaths are largely preventable through receipt of updated vaccines and timely administration of therapeutics (1-4).

Trends and Characteristics of Blood Pressure Prescription Fills Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare in the United States and raised concerns about certain antihypertensives, and may have impacted both prescribing practices and access to blood pressure (BP) medications. METHODS: We assessed trends in BP prescription fills before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, using cross-sectional data for BP fills and tablets in the IQVIA (IMS Health) National Prescription Audit® database. Drugs filled via retail (92% coverage), mail-order (78% coverage), and long-term care (72% coverage) channels from January 2018 through December 2020 were included. Data were projected nationally and by state. RESULTS: Between 2.9 and 3.4 billion BP tablets were dispensed monthly until February 2020, increasing sharply to 3.8 billion in March 2020 and declining to 3.5 billion in April, then increasing at 3-month intervals until December 2020. The number of tablets per fill increased slightly over time, with the largest increase (from 66.7 to 68.6) during February-March, 2020. Tablets were dispensed through retail channels (99.7 billion), mail-order (14.7 billion), and long-term care (5.3 billion). Rates of patients initiating new medications decreased during 2020 compared to prior years. Fills did not vary significantly by drug class. CONCLUSIONS: A sharp increase in BP fills occurred with COVID-19 emergence, suggesting patients may have secured medications in preparation for potential access limitations. A decrease in new fills, indicating decreased initiation and/or modification of treatment regimens, suggests need for efforts to re-engage patients in the healthcare system and provide alternative ways to obtain medication refills and adjustments.

Tracking COVID-19 in the United States With Surveillance of Aggregate Cases and Deaths.

Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) leveraged an existing surveillance system infrastructure to monitor COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States. Given the time needed to report individual-level (also called line-level) COVID-19 case and death data containing detailed information from individual case reports, CDC designed and implemented a new aggregate case surveillance system to inform emergency response decisions more efficiently, with timelier indicators of emerging areas of concern. We describe the processes implemented by CDC to operationalize this novel, multifaceted aggregate surveillance system for collecting COVID-19 case and death data to track the spread and impact of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at national, state, and county levels. We also review the processes established to acquire, process, and validate the aggregate number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in the United States at the county and jurisdiction levels during the pandemic. These processes include time-saving tools and strategies implemented to collect and validate authoritative COVID-19 case and death data from jurisdictions, such as web scraping to automate data collection and algorithms to identify and correct data anomalies. This topical review highlights the need to prepare for future emergencies, such as novel disease outbreaks, by having an event-agnostic aggregate surveillance system infrastructure in place to supplement line-level case reporting for near-real-time situational awareness and timely data.

Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems - United States, August 2022.

As SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to circulate globally, high levels of vaccine- and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools have substantially reduced the risk for medically significant COVID-19 illness (severe acute illness and post-COVID-19 conditions) and associated hospitalization and death (1). These circumstances now allow public health efforts to minimize the individual and societal health impacts of COVID-19 by focusing on sustainable measures to further reduce medically significant illness as well as to minimize strain on the health care system, while reducing barriers to social, educational, and economic activity (2). Individual risk for medically significant COVID-19 depends on a person's risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and their risk for developing severe illness if infected (3). Exposure risk can be mitigated through nonpharmaceutical interventions, including improving ventilation, use of masks or respirators indoors, and testing (4). The risk for medically significant illness increases with age, disability status, and underlying medical conditions but is considerably reduced by immunity derived from vaccination, previous infection, or both, as well as timely access to effective biomedical prevention measures and treatments (3,5). CDC's public health recommendations change in response to evolving science, the availability of biomedical and public health tools, and changes in context, such as levels of immunity in the population and currently circulating variants. CDC recommends a strategic approach to minimizing the impact of COVID-19 on health and society that relies on vaccination and therapeutics to prevent severe illness; use of multicomponent prevention measures where feasible; and particular emphasis on protecting persons at high risk for severe illness. Efforts to expand access to vaccination and therapeutics, including the use of preexposure prophylaxis for persons who are immunocompromised, antiviral agents, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, should be intensified to reduce the risk for medically significant illness and death. Efforts to protect persons at high risk for severe illness must ensure that all persons have access to information to understand their individual risk, as well as efficient and equitable access to vaccination, therapeutics, testing, and other prevention measures. Current priorities for preventing medically significant illness should focus on ensuring that persons 1) understand their risk, 2) take steps to protect themselves and others through vaccines, therapeutics, and nonpharmaceutical interventions when needed, 3) receive testing and wear masks if they have been exposed, and 4) receive testing if they are symptomatic, and isolate for ≥5 days if they are infected.

Antihypertensive and Statin Medication Adherence Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

INTRODUCTION: Medication adherence is important for optimal management of chronic conditions, including hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. This study describes adherence to antihypertensive and statin medications, individually and collectively, and examines variation in adherence by demographic and geographic characteristics. METHODS: The 2017 prescription drug event data for beneficiaries with Medicare Part D coverage were assessed. Beneficiaries with a proportion of days covered ≥80% were considered adherent. Adjusted prevalence ratios were estimated to quantify the associations between demographic and geographic characteristics and adherence. Adherence estimates were mapped by county of residence using a spatial empirical Bayesian smoothing technique to enhance stability. Analyses were conducted in 2019‒2021. RESULTS: Among the 22.5 million beneficiaries prescribed antihypertensive medications, 77.1% were adherent; among the 16.1 million prescribed statin medications, 81.9% were adherent; and among the 13.5 million prescribed antihypertensive and statin medications, 70.3% were adherent to both. Adherence varied by race/ethnicity: American Indian/Alaska Native (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.83, 95% confidence limit=0.82, 0.842), Hispanic (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.90, 95% confidence limit=0.90, 0.91), and non-Hispanic Black (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.87, 95% confidence limit=0.86, 0.87) beneficiaries were less likely to be adherent than non-Hispanic White beneficiaries. County-level adherence ranged across the U.S. from 25.7% to 88.5% for antihypertensive medications, from 36.0% to 93.8% for statin medications, and from 20.8% to 92.9% for both medications combined and tended to be the lowest in the southern U.S. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights opportunities for efforts to remove barriers and support medication adherence, especially among racial/ethnic minority groups and within the regions at greatest risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

COVID-19 Self-Test Data: Challenges and Opportunities - United States, October 31, 2021-June 11, 2022.

Self-tests* to detect current infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, are valuable tools that guide individual decision-making and risk reduction† (1-3). Increased self-test use (4) has likely contributed to underascertainment of COVID-19 cases (5-7), because unlike the requirements to report results of laboratory-based and health care provider-administered point-of-care COVID-19 tests,§ public health authorities do not require reporting of self-test results. However, self-test instructions include a recommendation that users report results to their health care provider so that they can receive additional testing and treatment if clinically indicated.¶ In addition, multiple manufacturers of COVID-19 self-tests have developed websites or companion mobile applications for users to voluntarily report self-test result data. Federal agencies use the data reported to manufacturers, in combination with manufacturing supply chain information, to better understand self-test availability and use. This report summarizes data voluntarily reported by users of 10.7 million self-tests from four manufacturers during October 31, 2021-June 11, 2022, and compares these self-test data with data received by CDC for 361.9 million laboratory-based and point-of-care tests performed during the same period. Overall trends in reporting volume and percentage of positive results, as well as completeness of reporting demographic variables, were similar across test types. However, the limited amount and quality of data reported from self-tests currently reduces their capacity to augment existing surveillance. Self-tests provide important risk-reduction information to users, and continued development of infrastructure and methods to collect and analyze data from self-tests could improve their use for surveillance during public health emergencies.

Prescription Smoking-Cessation Medication Fills and Spending, 2009-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death. However, effective medicines, including prescription medications often covered by health insurance, are available to aid cessation. METHODS: Trends of 7 U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription medications for smoking cessation during 2009-2019 (before and during Affordable Care Act implementation), including fill counts and spending (total and patient, adjusted to 2019 U.S. dollars), were assessed among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years. Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse combines data on >90% of outpatient prescription fills with market purchasing data to create national estimates. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Annually, total fills (spending) decreased from 3.7 million ($577 million) in 2009 to 2.5 million ($465 million) in 2013 and increased to 4.5 million ($1.279 billion) in 2019; patient spending decreased from $174 million (30% of total annual spending) in 2009 to $54 million (4%) in 2019. Comparing 2009 with 2019, the total spending per fill increased by 80% (from $157 to $282), whereas patient spending per fill decreased by 75% (from $47 to $12). The total spending per fill for branded products increased by 175% (from $166 to $459) and decreased by 41% (from $75 to $44) for generic products. Branded product percentage decreased from 89% to 57%. CONCLUSIONS: Total fills and spending decreased from 2009 to 2013 and then increased through 2019, whereas patient spending decreased. Earlier studies suggest possible reasons for these trends, such as gradual implementation of federal requirements for insurance coverage of cessation medications and reduced cost sharing and financial barriers.

Cardiac Complications After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination - PCORnet, United States, January 2021-January 2022.

Cardiac complications, particularly myocarditis and pericarditis, have been associated with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection (1-3) and mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (2-5). Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection with frequent cardiac involvement (6). Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 40 U.S. health care systems during January 1, 2021-January 31, 2022, investigators calculated incidences of cardiac outcomes (myocarditis; myocarditis or pericarditis; and myocarditis, pericarditis, or MIS) among persons aged ≥5 years who had SARS-CoV-2 infection, stratified by sex (male or female) and age group (5-11, 12-17, 18-29, and ≥30 years). Incidences of myocarditis and myocarditis or pericarditis were calculated after first, second, unspecified, or any (first, second, or unspecified) dose of mRNA COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) vaccines, stratified by sex and age group. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated to compare risk for cardiac outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection to that after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. The incidence of cardiac outcomes after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was highest for males aged 12-17 years after the second vaccine dose; however, within this demographic group, the risk for cardiac outcomes was 1.8-5.6 times as high after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after the second vaccine dose. The risk for cardiac outcomes was likewise significantly higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after first, second, or unspecified dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination for all other groups by sex and age (RR 2.2-115.2). These findings support continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons aged ≥5 years.

Blood Pressure Control Among Non-Hispanic Black Adults Is Lower Than Non-Hispanic White Adults Despite Similar Treatment With Antihypertensive Medication: NHANES 2013-2018.

BACKGROUND: Controlled blood pressure can prevent or reduce adverse health outcomes. Social and structural determinants may contribute to the disparity that despite equivalent proportions on antihypertensive medication, non-Hispanic Black (Black) adults have lower blood pressure control and more cardiovascular events than non-Hispanic White (White) adults. METHODS: Data from 2013 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were pooled to assess control among Black and White adults by antihypertensive medication use and selected characteristics using the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Blood Pressure Guideline definition (systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg) among 4,739 adults. RESULTS: Among those treated with antihypertensive medication, an estimated 34.9% of Black and 45.0% of White adults had controlled blood pressure. Control was lower for Black and White adults among most subgroups of age, sex, education, insurance status, usual source of care, and poverty-income ratio. Black adults had higher use of diuretics (28.5%-Black adults vs. 23.5%-White adults) and calcium channel blockers (24.2%-Black adults vs. 14.7%-White adults) compared with White adults. Control among Black adults was lower than White adults across all medication classes including diuretics (36.1%-Black adults vs. 47.3%-White adults), calcium channel blockers (30.2%-Black adults vs. 40.1%-White adults), and number of medication classes used. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal blood pressure control rates and disparities warrant increased efforts to improve control, which could include addressing social and structural determinants along with emphasizing implementation of the 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Guideline into clinical practice.

Rates of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated hospitalization among adults with congestive heart failure-United States, 2015-2017.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause severe disease in adults with cardiopulmonary conditions, such as congestive heart failure (CHF). We quantified the rate of RSV-associated hospitalization in adults by CHF status using population-based surveillance in the United States. METHODS: Population-based surveillance for RSV (RSV-NET) was performed in 35 counties in seven sites during two respiratory seasons (2015-2017) from October 1-April 30. Adults (≥18 years) admitted to a hospital within the surveillance catchment area with laboratory-confirmed RSV identified by clinician-directed testing were included. Presence of underlying CHF was determined by medical chart abstraction. We calculated overall and age-stratified (<65 years and ≥65 years) RSV-associated hospitalization rates by CHF status. Estimates were adjusted for age and the under-detection of RSV. We also report rate differences (RD) and rate ratios (RR) by comparing the rates for those with and without CHF. RESULTS: 2042 hospitalized RSV cases with CHF status recorded were identified. Most (60.2%, n = 1230) were ≥65 years, and 28.3% (n = 577) had CHF. The adjusted RSV hospitalization rate was 26.7 (95% CI: 22.2, 31.8) per 10,000 population in adults with CHF versus 3.3 (95% CI: 3.3, 3.3) per 10,000 in adults without CHF (RR: 8.1, 95% CI: 6.8, 9.7; RD: 23.4, 95% CI: 18.9, 28.5). Adults with CHF had higher rates of RSV-associated hospitalization in both age groups (<65 years and ≥65 years). Adults ≥65 years with CHF had the highest rate (40.5 per 10,000 population, 95% CI: 35.1, 46.6). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with CHF had 8 times the rate of RSV-associated hospitalization compared with adults without CHF. Identifying high-risk populations for RSV infection can inform future RSV vaccination policies and recommendations.

Tracking Cardiac Rehabilitation Utilization in Medicare Beneficiaries: 2017 UPDATE.

PURPOSE: This study updates cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization data in a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for CR-eligible events in 2017, including stratification by select patient demographics and state of residence. METHODS: We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who experienced a CR-eligible event and assessed their CR participation (≥1 CR sessions in 365 d), engagement, and completion (≥36 sessions) rates through September 7, 2019. Measures were assessed overall, by beneficiary characteristics and state of residence, and by primary (myocardial infarction; coronary artery bypass surgery; heart valve repair/replacement; percutaneous coronary intervention; or heart/heart-lung transplant) and secondary (angina; heart failure) qualifying event type. RESULTS: In 2017, 412 080 Medicare beneficiaries had a primary CR-eligible event and 28.6% completed ≥1 session of CR within 365 d after discharge from a qualifying event. Among beneficiaries who completed ≥1 CR session, the mean total number of sessions was 25 ± 12 and 27.6% completed ≥36 sessions. Nebraska had the highest enrollment rate (56.1%), with four other states also achieving an enrollment rate >50% and 23 states falling below the overall rate for the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute enrollment, engagement, and program completion rates remain low among Medicare beneficiaries, indicating that many patients did not benefit or fully benefit from a class I guideline-recommended therapy. Additional research and continued widespread adoption of successful enrollment and engagement initiatives are needed, especially among identified populations.

Trends in Disease Severity and Health Care Utilization During the Early Omicron Variant Period Compared with Previous SARS-CoV-2 High Transmission Periods - United States, December 2020-January 2022.

The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first clinically identified in the United States on December 1, 2021, and spread rapidly. By late December, it became the predominant strain, and by January 15, 2022, it represented 99.5% of sequenced specimens in the United States* (1). The Omicron variant has been shown to be more transmissible and less virulent than previously circulating variants (2,3). To better understand the severity of disease and health care utilization associated with the emergence of the Omicron variant in the United States, CDC examined data from three surveillance systems and a large health care database to assess multiple indicators across three high-COVID-19 transmission periods: December 1, 2020-February 28, 2021 (winter 2020-21); July 15-October 31, 2021 (SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 [Delta] predominance); and December 19, 2021-January 15, 2022 (Omicron predominance). The highest daily 7-day moving average to date of cases (798,976 daily cases during January 9-15, 2022), emergency department (ED) visits (48,238), and admissions (21,586) were reported during the Omicron period, however, the highest daily 7-day moving average of deaths (1,854) was lower than during previous periods. During the Omicron period, a maximum of 20.6% of staffed inpatient beds were in use for COVID-19 patients, 3.4 and 7.2 percentage points higher than during the winter 2020-21 and Delta periods, respectively. However, intensive care unit (ICU) bed use did not increase to the same degree: 30.4% of staffed ICU beds were in use for COVID-19 patients during the Omicron period, 0.5 percentage points lower than during the winter 2020-21 period and 1.2 percentage points higher than during the Delta period. The ratio of peak ED visits to cases (event-to-case ratios) (87 per 1,000 cases), hospital admissions (27 per 1,000 cases), and deaths (nine per 1,000 cases [lagged by 3 weeks]) during the Omicron period were lower than those observed during the winter 2020-21 (92, 68, and 16 respectively) and Delta (167, 78, and 13, respectively) periods. Further, among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from 199 U.S. hospitals, the mean length of stay and percentages who were admitted to an ICU, received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and died while in the hospital were lower during the Omicron period than during previous periods. COVID-19 disease severity appears to be lower during the Omicron period than during previous periods of high transmission, likely related to higher vaccination coverage,† which reduces disease severity (4), lower virulence of the Omicron variant (3,5,6), and infection-acquired immunity (3,7). Although disease severity appears lower with the Omicron variant, the high volume of ED visits and hospitalizations can strain local health care systems in the United States, and the average daily number of deaths remains substantial.§ This underscores the importance of national emergency preparedness, specifically, hospital surge capacity and the ability to adequately staff local health care systems. In addition, being up to date on vaccination and following other recommended prevention strategies are critical to preventing infections, severe illness, or death from COVID-19.

Hypertension at delivery hospitalization - United States, 2016-2017.

In this study, hospital discharge data from the 2016-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were analyzed to describe national and, where data were available, state-specific prevalences of chronic hypertension and pregnancy-associated hypertension at delivery hospitalization. In 2016-2017, the prevalence of chronic hypertension was 216 per 10,000 delivery hospitalizations nationwide, ranging from 125 to 400 per 10,000 delivery hospitalizations in individual states. The prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension was 1021 per 10,000 delivery hospitalizations nationwide, ranging from 693 to 1382 per 10,000 delivery hospitalizations in individual states. The burden of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remains high and varies considerably by jurisdiction.

Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Between Urban and Rural Counties - United States, December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021.

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).

Demographic and Social Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Initiation Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years - United States, December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021.

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.

Medicaid Medical Costs Associated with Hypertension by Diabetes Status among Women in Alabama.

Though a high proportion of Medicaid population in Alabama are women, little is known about their economic burdens of diabetes and hypertension. We used Alabama Medicaid claims data of 16,107 female enrollees aged 19-64 years to estimate per-capita total annual medical costs of hypertension by diabetes status. Hypertension prevalence was 60.0% and 17.3% among those with and without diabetes. The estimated annual medical cost for enrollees with hypertension was $6,689 (in 2017 $), of which $2,369 was associated with having hypertension. The hypertension-associated excess costs were $2,646 and $2,378 for enrollees with and without diabetes. All subgroups such as Blacks and those with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 1, had higher medical costs when they had a combination of hypertension and diabetes compared with having diabetes without hypertension. Hypertension and diabetes increased medical costs substantially, and the findings can inform decision makers about effective resource utilizations for prevention and treatment strategies.

COVID-19 Vaccine Second-Dose Completion and Interval Between First and Second Doses Among Vaccinated Persons - United States, December 14, 2020-February 14, 2021.

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration.*,† Both vaccines require 2 doses for a completed series. The recommended interval between doses is 21 days for Pfizer-BioNTech and 28 days for Moderna; however, up to 42 days between doses is permissible when a delay is unavoidable.§ Two analyses of COVID-19 vaccine administration data were conducted among persons who initiated the vaccination series during December 14, 2020-February 14, 2021, and whose doses were reported to CDC through February 20, 2021. The first analysis was conducted to determine whether persons who received a first dose and had sufficient time to receive the second dose (i.e., as of February 14, 2021, >25 days from receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or >32 days from receipt of Moderna vaccine had elapsed) had received the second dose. A second analysis was conducted among persons who received a second COVID-19 dose by February 14, 2021, to determine whether the dose was received during the recommended dosing interval, which in this study was defined as 17-25 days (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 24-32 days (Moderna) after the first dose. Analyses were stratified by jurisdiction and by demographic characteristics. In the first analysis, among 12,496,258 persons who received the first vaccine dose and for whom sufficient time had elapsed to receive the second dose, 88.0% had completed the series, 8.6% had not received the second dose but remained within the allowable interval (≤42 days since the first dose), and 3.4% had missed the second dose (outside the allowable interval, >42 days since the first dose). The percentage of persons who missed the second dose varied by jurisdiction (range = 0.0%-9.1%) and among demographic groups was highest among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons (5.1%) and persons aged 16-44 years (4.0%). In the second analysis, among 14,205,768 persons who received a second dose, 95.6% received the dose within the recommended interval, although percentages varied by jurisdiction (range = 79.0%-99.9%). Public health officials should identify and address possible barriers to completing the COVID-19 vaccination series to ensure equitable coverage across communities and maximum health benefits for recipients. Strategies to ensure series completion could include scheduling second-dose appointments at the first-dose administration and sending reminders for second-dose visits.

Demographic Characteristics of Persons Vaccinated During the First Month of the COVID-19 Vaccination Program - United States, December 14, 2020-January 14, 2021.

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).

Characteristics and trends of PCSK9 inhibitor prescription fills in the United States.

BACKGROUND: PCSK9 inhibitors were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. In the years following, additional research findings, changes in national guideline recommendations, and price reductions have occurred. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study is to describe the characteristics and trends in PCSK9 inhibitor prescription fills and price, from initial FDA approval in Quarter 3 2015 through Quarter 4 2019, at the national and state levels. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of fills obtained using the IQVIA National Prescription Audit®, Extended Insights, New to Brand, and Regional databases. Prescription fills included injections that provided cholesterol-lowering therapy from 14 to 90 days for the two PCSK9 inhibitors: alirocumab (75 mg/mL and 150 mg/mL) or evolocumab (140 mg/mL and 420 mg/3.5 mL). Quarterly prescription fills obtained nationally for Quarter 3 2015 through Quarter 4 2019, by sex, age, and state during 2019. RESULTS: Over the time period examined, 2.75 million PCSK9 inhibitor prescriptions were filled nationally (alirocumab: 38%; evolocumab: 62%), and the average retail price per fill (unadjusted $US) from retail pharmacies decreased by 40% from $1502 to $896 per fill. Year-over-year percent change in new PCSK9 inhibitor users increased throughout the observation period, with 9611 new alirocumab users and 25,381 new evolocumab users in Q4 2019. PCSK9 inhibitor fill rates ranged from 5.6 per 1000 in the Northeast to 3.4 per 1000 in the West in 2019, with the highest rate per 1000 in Louisiana (9.1), and lowest in Wyoming (1.3). CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 inhibitor prescriptions have increased nationally since 2015, coinciding with additional evidence supporting their use for LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular event reduction. Although the retail price has decreased since introduction, cost and delivery mode likely continue as barriers.

Opening of Large Institutions of Higher Education and County-Level COVID-19 Incidence - United States, July 6-September 17, 2020.

During early August 2020, county-level incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) generally decreased across the United States, compared with incidence earlier in the summer (1); however, among young adults aged 18-22 years, incidence increased (2). Increases in incidence among adults aged ≥60 years, who might be more susceptible to severe COVID-19-related illness, have followed increases in younger adults (aged 20-39 years) by an average of 8.7 days (3). Institutions of higher education (colleges and universities) have been identified as settings where incidence among young adults increased during August (4,5). Understanding the extent to which these settings have affected county-level COVID-19 incidence can inform ongoing college and university operations and future planning. To evaluate the effect of large colleges or universities and school instructional format* (remote or in-person) on COVID-19 incidence, start dates and instructional formats for the fall 2020 semester were identified for all not-for-profit large U.S. colleges and universities (≥20,000 total enrolled students). Among counties with large colleges and universities (university counties) included in the analysis, remote-instruction university counties (22) experienced a 17.9% decline in mean COVID-19 incidence during the 21 days before through 21 days after the start of classes (from 17.9 to 14.7 cases per 100,000), and in-person instruction university counties (79) experienced a 56.2% increase in COVID-19 incidence, from 15.3 to 23.9 cases per 100,000. Counties without large colleges and universities (nonuniversity counties) (3,009) experienced a 5.9% decline in COVID-19 incidence, from 15.3 to 14.4 cases per 100,000. Similar findings were observed for percentage of positive test results and hotspot status (i.e., increasing among in-person-instruction university counties). In-person instruction at colleges and universities was associated with increased county-level COVID-19 incidence and percentage test positivity. Implementation of increased mitigation efforts at colleges and universities could minimize on-campus COVID-19 transmission.