RESUMO
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, primarily used to treat autoimmune diseases and to prevent and treat malaria, received national attention in early March 2020, as potential treatment and prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). On March 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in the Strategic National Stockpile to be used by licensed health care providers to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 when the providers determine the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk to the patient.* Following reports of cardiac and other adverse events in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (2), on April 24, 2020, FDA issued a caution against its use and on June 15, rescinded its EUA for hydroxychloroquine from the Strategic National Stockpile.§ Following the FDA's issuance of caution and EUA rescindment, on May 12 and June 16, the federal COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel issued recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19; the panel also noted that at that time no medication could be recommended for COVID-19 pre- or postexposure prophylaxis outside the setting of a clinical trial (3). However, public discussion concerning the effectiveness of these drugs on outcomes of COVID-19 (4,5), and clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 continue.¶ In response to recent reports of notable increases in prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (6), CDC analyzed outpatient retail pharmacy transaction data to identify potential differences in prescriptions dispensed by provider type during January-June 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Before 2020, primary care providers and specialists who routinely prescribed hydroxychloroquine, such as rheumatologists and dermatologists, accounted for approximately 97% of new prescriptions. New prescriptions by specialists who did not typically prescribe these medications (defined as specialties accounting for ≤2% of new prescriptions before 2020) increased from 1,143 prescriptions in February 2020 to 75,569 in March 2020, an 80-fold increase from March 2019. Although dispensing trends are returning to prepandemic levels, continued adherence to current clinical guidelines for the indicated use of these medications will ensure their availability and benefit to patients for whom their use is indicated (3,4), because current data on treatment and pre- or postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 indicate that the potential benefits of these drugs do not appear to outweigh their risks.
Assuntos
Cloroquina/uso terapêutico , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Especialização/estatística & dados numéricos , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19RESUMO
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is thought to spread from person to person primarily by the respiratory route and mainly through close contact (1). Community mitigation strategies can lower the risk for disease transmission by limiting or preventing person-to-person interactions (2). U.S. states and territories began implementing various community mitigation policies in March 2020. One widely implemented strategy was the issuance of orders requiring persons to stay home, resulting in decreased population movement in some jurisdictions (3). Each state or territory has authority to enact its own laws and policies to protect the public's health, and jurisdictions varied widely in the type and timing of orders issued related to stay-at-home requirements. To identify the broader impact of these stay-at-home orders, using publicly accessible, anonymized location data from mobile devices, CDC and the Georgia Tech Research Institute analyzed changes in population movement relative to stay-at-home orders issued during March 1-May 31, 2020, by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.* During this period, 42 states and territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders. When counties subject to mandatory state- and territory-issued stay-at-home orders were stratified along rural-urban categories, movement decreased significantly relative to the preorder baseline in all strata. Mandatory stay-at-home orders can help reduce activities associated with the spread of COVID-19, including population movement and close person-to-person contact outside the household.
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Dinâmica Populacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Saúde Pública/legislação & jurisprudência , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Humanos , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (Tracking Program) is a multidisciplinary collaboration that involves the ongoing collection, integration, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of data from environmental hazard monitoring, human exposure surveillance, and health effects surveillance. With a renewed focus on data-driven decision-making, the CDC's Tracking Program emphasizes dissemination of actionable data to public health practitioners, policy makers, and communities. The CDC's National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network), a Web-based system with components at the national, state, and local levels, houses environmental public health data used to inform public health actions (PHAs) to improve community health. This article serves as a detailed landscape on the Tracking Program and Tracking Network and the Tracking Program's leading performance measure, "public health actions." Tracking PHAs are qualitative statements addressing a local problem or situation, the role of the state or local Tracking Program, how the problem or situation was addressed, and the action taken. More than 400 PHAs have been reported by funded state and local health departments since the Tracking Program began collecting PHAs in 2005. Three case studies are provided to illustrate the use of the Tracking Program resources and data on the Tracking Network, and the diversity of actions taken. Through a collaborative network of experts, data, and tools, the Tracking Program and its Tracking Network are actively informing state and local PHAs. In a time of competing priorities and limited funding, PHAs can serve as a powerful tool to advance environmental public health practice.
RESUMO
Public health agencies at the federal, state, and local level are responsible for implementing actions and policies that address health problems related to environmental hazards. These actions and policies can be informed by integrating or linking data on health, exposure, hazards, and population. The mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention׳s National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (Tracking Program) is to provide information from a nationwide network of integrated health, environmental hazard, and exposure data that drives actions to improve the health of communities. The Tracking Program and federal, state, and local partners collect, integrate, analyze, and disseminate data and information to inform environmental public health actions. However, many challenges exist regarding the availability and quality of data, the application of appropriate methods and tools to link data, and the state of the science needed to link and analyze health and environmental data. The Tracking Program has collaborated with academia to address key challenges in these areas. The collaboration has improved our understanding of the uses and limitations of available data and methods, expanded the use of existing data and methods, and increased our knowledge about the connections between health and environment. Valuable working relationships have been forged in this process, and together we have identified opportunities and improvements for future collaborations to further advance the science and practice of environmental public health tracking.