Environmental management of asthma in clinical practice: Results from the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Background: The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines emphasize environmental control as an integral part of asthma management; however, limited national-level data exist on how clinicians implement environmental control recommendations. Objective: We analyzed data on clinicians' self-reported use of recommended environmental control practices in a nationally representative sample (n = 1645) of primary care physicians, asthma specialists, and advanced practice providers from the National Asthma Survey of Physicians, a supplemental questionnaire to the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Methods: We examined clinician and practice characteristics as well as clinicians' decisions and strategies regarding environmental trigger assessment and environmental control across provider groups. Regression modeling was used to identify clinician and practice characteristics associated with implementation of guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of specialists assessed asthma triggers at home, school, and/or work than primary care or advanced practice providers (almost always: 53.6% vs 29.4% and 23.7%, respectively, P < .001). Almost all clinicians (>93%) recommended avoidance of secondhand tobacco smoke, whereas recommendations regarding cooking appliances (eg, proper ventilation) were infrequent. Although assessment and recommendation practices differed between clinician groups, modeling results showed that clinicians who reported almost always assessing asthma control were 5- to 6-fold more likely to assess environmental asthma triggers. Use of asthma action plans was also strongly associated with implementation of environmental control recommendations. Conclusions: Environmental assessment and recommendations to patients varied among asthma care providers. High adherence to other key guideline components, such as assessing asthma control, was associated with environmental assessment and recommendation practices on environmental control.

Surveillance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in US Children Aged 5-11 Years Who Received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, November 2021 through March 2022.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; in the United States, reporting of MIS-C after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is required for vaccine safety monitoring. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for children aged 5-11 years on 29 October 2021. Covering a period when approximately 7 million children received vaccine, surveillance for MIS-C ≤ 90 days postvaccination using passive systems identified 58 children with MIS-C and laboratory evidence of past/recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 4 without evidence. During a period with extensive SARS-CoV-2 circulation, MIS-C illness in children after COVID-19 vaccination who lacked evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was rare (<1 per million vaccinated children).

Diagnosed Allergic Conditions in Children Aged 0-17 Years: United States, 2021.

The percentage of children with certain allergic conditions has increased over previous decades (1,2). Seasonal allergies, which includes hay fever, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis, causes sneezing, cough, runny nose, and itchy eyes. Eczema, also known as atopic dermatitis, causes itchy, bumpy rashes and thickened skin that can appear anywhere on the body. Food allergies can cause hives, vomiting, trouble breathing, or throat tightening. Children with allergic conditions may have increased healthcare use and decreased quality of life (3). Food allergies can be life threatening (4). This report describes the percentage of children who had diagnosed seasonal allergy, eczema, or food allergy by sex, age, and race and Hispanic origin from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

SARS-CoV-2 Serology and Self-Reported Infection Among Adults - National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, August 2021-May 2022.

CDC COVID-19 surveillance systems monitor SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence to collect information about asymptomatic, undiagnosed, and unreported disease using national convenience samples of blood donor data from commercial laboratories (1,2). However, nonrandom sampling of data from these systems could affect prevalence estimates (1-3). The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collects SARS-CoV-2 serology data among a sample of the general U.S. civilian population (4). In addition, NHANES collects self-reported COVID-19 vaccination and disease history, and its statistical sampling design is not based on health care access or blood donation. Therefore, NHANES data can be used to better quantify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence and seropositivity attained through infection without vaccination. Preliminary NHANES 2021-2022 results indicated that 41.6% of adults aged ≥18 years had serology indicative of past infection and that 43.7% of these adults, including 57.1% of non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) adults, reported never having had COVID-19, possibly representing asymptomatic infection. In addition, 25.5% of adults whose serology indicated past infection reported never having received COVID-19 vaccination. Prevalences of seropositivity in the absence of vaccination were higher among younger adults and Black adults, reflecting the lower observed vaccination rates among these groups (5). These findings raise health equity concerns given the disparities observed in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. Results from NHANES 2021-2022 can guide ongoing efforts to achieve vaccine equity in COVID-19 primary vaccination series and booster dose coverage.

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2017-March 2020 Prepandemic File: Sample Design, Estimation, and Analytic Guidelines.

Objectives This report describes the creation of the NHANES 2017-March 2020 prepandemic data files, including the selection of the appropriate NHANES sample design (2015-2018) to create sample weights and variance units for public-use data files. Additionally, the development of a factor applied to the primary sampling units to adjust the 2017-March 2020 data to fit the NHANES 2015-2018 sample design is described. Analyses to assess representativeness of the target population were performed, and a simulation to replicate the impact of interrupted data collection using earlier NHANES cycles was undertaken. Analytic guidance specific to use for prepandemic data files is also included. .

Current State of Pediatric Reference Intervals and the Importance of Correctly Describing the Biochemistry of Child Development: A Review.

Importance: Appropriately established pediatric reference intervals are critical to the clinical decision-making process and should reflect the physiologic changes that occur during healthy child development. Reference intervals used in pediatric care today remain highly inconsistent across a broad range of common clinical biomarkers. Observations: This narrative review assesses biomarker-specific pediatric reference intervals and their clinical utility with respect to the underlying biological changes occurring during development. Pediatric reference intervals from PubMed-indexed articles published from January 2015 to April 2021, commercial laboratory websites, study cohorts, and pediatric reference interval books were all examined. Although large numbers of pediatric reference intervals are published for some biomarkers, very few are used by clinical and commercial laboratories. The patterns, extent, and timing of biomarker changes are highly variable, particularly during developmental stages with rapid physiologic changes. However, many pediatric reference intervals do not capture these changes and thus do not accurately reflect the underlying biochemistry of development, resulting in significant inconsistencies between reference intervals. Conclusions and Relevance: There is a need to correctly describe the biochemistry of child development as well as to identify strategies to develop accurate and consistent pediatric reference intervals for improved pediatric care.

Reinfection With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Previously Infected Healthcare Personnel and First Responders.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus testing among first responders and healthcare personnel who participated in a May 2020-August 2020 serosurvey that assessed spike protein antibodies provided an opportunity to assess reinfection. METHODS: Serology survey data were merged with virus testing results from Rhode Island (1 March 2020-17 February 2021) and New York City (10 March 2020-14 December 2020). Participants with a positive virus test ≥14 days before their serology test were included. Reinfection was defined as a second positive SARS-CoV-2 test ≥90 days after the first positive test. The association between serostatus and reinfection was assessed with a proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among 1572 previously infected persons, 40 (2.5%) were reinfected. Reinfection differed by serostatus: 8.4% among seronegative vs 1.9% among seropositive participants (P < .0001). Most reinfections occurred among Rhode Island nursing home and corrections personnel (n = 30) who were most frequently tested (mean 30.3 tests vs 4.6 for other Rhode Island and 2.3 for New York City participants). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for reinfection in seropositive vs seronegative persons was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], .20-.81). Exposure to a household member with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) before the serosurvey was also protective (aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, .13-.89). CONCLUSIONS: Reinfections were uncommon among previously infected persons over a 9-month period that preceded widespread variant circulation. Seropositivity decreased reinfection risk. Lower reinfection risk associated with exposure to a household member with COVID-19 may reflect subsequently reduced household transmission.

Duration of Viral Nucleic Acid Shedding and Early Reinfection With Severe Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Healthcare Workers and First Responders.

We estimated the distributions of duration of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid shedding and time to reinfection among 137 persons with at least 2 positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results from March to September 2020. We analyzed gaps of varying length between subsequent positive and negative NAAT results and estimated a mean duration of nucleic acid shedding of 30.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.3-34.5). Mean time to reinfection was 89.1 days (95% CI, 75.3-103.5). Together, these indicate that a 90-day period between positive NAAT results can reliably define reinfection in immunocompetent persons although reinfection can occur at shorter intervals.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seropositivity among Healthcare Personnel in Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Rhode Island, USA, July-August 2020.

Healthcare personnel are recognized to be at higher risk for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We conducted a serologic survey in 15 hospitals and 56 nursing homes across Rhode Island, USA, during July 17-August 28, 2020. Overall seropositivity among 9,863 healthcare personnel was 4.6% (95% CI 4.2%-5.0%) but varied 4-fold between hospital personnel (3.1%, 95% CI 2.7%-3.5%) and nursing home personnel (13.1%, 95% CI 11.5%-14.9%). Within nursing homes, prevalence was highest among personnel working in coronavirus disease units (24.1%; 95% CI 20.6%-27.8%). Adjusted analysis showed that in hospitals, nurses and receptionists/medical assistants had a higher likelihood of seropositivity than physicians. In nursing homes, nursing assistants and social workers/case managers had higher likelihoods of seropositivity than occupational/physical/speech therapists. Nursing home personnel in all occupations had elevated seropositivity compared with hospital counterparts. Additional mitigation strategies are needed to protect nursing home personnel from infection, regardless of occupation.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in First Responders and Public Safety Personnel, New York City, New York, USA, May-July 2020.

We conducted a serologic survey in public service agencies in New York City, New York, USA, during May-July 2020 to determine prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among first responders. Of 22,647 participants, 22.5% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Seroprevalence for police and firefighters was similar to overall seroprevalence; seroprevalence was highest in correctional staff (39.2%) and emergency medical technicians (38.3%) and lowest in laboratory technicians (10.1%) and medicolegal death investigators (10.8%). Adjusted analyses demonstrated association between seropositivity and exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive household members (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.52 [95% CI 3.19-3.87]), non-Hispanic Black race or ethnicity (aOR 1.50 [95% CI 1.33-1.68]), and severe obesity (aOR 1.31 [95% CI 1.05-1.65]). Consistent glove use (aOR 1.19 [95% CI 1.06-1.33]) increased likelihood of seropositivity; use of other personal protective equipment had no association. Infection control measures, including vaccination, should be prioritized for frontline workers.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Symptoms and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Positivity in a Large Survey of First Responders and Healthcare Personnel, May-July 2020.

A severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 serosurvey among first responder/healthcare personnel showed that loss of taste/smell was most predictive of seropositivity; percent seropositivity increased with number of coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms. However, 22.9% with 9 symptoms were seronegative, and 8.3% with no symptoms were seropositive. These findings demonstrate limitations of symptom-based surveillance and importance of testing.

Lack of Antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a Large Cohort of Previously Infected Persons.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that some persons previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lack detectable immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. We aimed to determine the proportion IgG seronegative and predictors for seronegativity among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We analyzed serologic data collected from healthcare workers and first responders in New York City and the Detroit metropolitan area with a history of a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result and who were tested for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at least 2 weeks after symptom onset. RESULTS: Of 2547 persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 160 (6.3%) were seronegative. Of 2112 previously symptomatic persons, the proportion seronegative slightly increased from 14 to 90 days post symptom onset (P = .06). The proportion seronegative ranged from 0% among 79 persons previously hospitalized to 11.0% among 308 persons with asymptomatic infections. In a multivariable model, persons who took immunosuppressive medications were more likely to be seronegative (31.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-64.7%), while participants of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic White; 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.8%), with severe obesity (vs under/normal weight; 3.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-8.6%), or with more symptoms were less likely to be seronegative. CONCLUSIONS: In our population with previous RT-PCR-confirmed infection, approximately 1 in 16 persons lacked IgG antibodies. Absence of antibodies varied independently by illness severity, race/ethnicity, obesity, and immunosuppressive drug therapy. The proportion seronegative remained relatively stable among persons tested up to 90 days post symptom onset.

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-March 2020 Prepandemic Data Files-Development of Files and Prevalence Estimates for Selected Health Outcomes.

Background and objectives: In March 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic halted National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) field operations. As data collected in the partial 2019-2020 cycle (herein referred to as 2019-March 2020) are not nationally representative, they were combined with previously released 2017-2018 data to produce nationally representative estimates. This report explains the creation of the 2017-March 2020 prepandemic data files, provides recommendations for and limitations of the files' use, and presents prevalence estimates for selected health outcomes based on the files. Methods: The 2019-2020 primary sampling units (PSUs) were reassigned to the 2015-2018 sample design strata and combined with the 2017-2018 data to create a data set that could be used to calculate nationally representative estimates. A PSU-level adjustment factor was created to equalize the contribution of each stratum to the total survey sample and applied to participant base weights. Interview and examination weights were calculated from the adjusted base weights. The performance of final interview weights was assessed by comparing the demographic characteristics of the weighted NHANES 2017-March 2020 prepandemic sample with nationally representative estimates from the 2018 5-year American Community Survey. Prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for selected health outcomes. Results: Among children and adolescents aged 2-19 years, the prevalence of obesity was 19.7% and the prevalence of untreated or restored dental caries in one or more primary or permanent teeth was 46.0%. Among adults aged 20 and over, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity was 41.9%, severe obesity was 9.2%, and diabetes was 14.8%. Among adults aged 18 and over, the age-adjusted prevalence of hypertension was 45.1%. Among adults aged 65 and over, the age-adjusted prevalence of complete tooth loss was 13.8%. Conclusion: A PSU-level adjustment factor and additional weighting adjustments made nationally representative estimates from the 2017-March 2020 prepandemic data files possible; this was the last NHANES data collected before widespread transmission of COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence among Healthcare, First Response, and Public Safety Personnel, Detroit Metropolitan Area, Michigan, USA, May-June 2020.

To estimate seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare, first response, and public safety personnel, antibody testing was conducted in emergency medical service agencies and 27 hospitals in the Detroit, Michigan, USA, metropolitan area during May-June 2020. Of 16,403 participants, 6.9% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In adjusted analyses, seropositivity was associated with exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive household members (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.18, 95% CI 4.81-7.93) and working within 15 km of Detroit (aOR 5.60, 95% CI 3.98-7.89). Nurse assistants (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.24-2.83) and nurses (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18-1.95) had higher likelihood of seropositivity than physicians. Working in a hospital emergency department increased the likelihood of seropositivity (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.002-1.35). Consistently using N95 respirators (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95) and surgical facemasks (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98) decreased the likelihood of seropositivity.

Use of National Asthma Guidelines by Allergists and Pulmonologists: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about specialist-specific variations in guideline agreement and adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess similarities and differences between allergists and pulmonologists in adherence to cornerstone components of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Third Expert Panel Report. METHODS: Self-reported guideline agreement, self-efficacy, and adherence were assessed in allergists (n = 134) and pulmonologists (n = 99) in the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians. Multivariate models were used to assess if physician and practice characteristics explained bivariate associations between specialty and "almost always" adhering to recommendations (ie, ≥75% of the time). RESULTS: Allergists and pulmonologists reported high guideline self-efficacy and moderate guideline agreement. Both groups "almost always" assessed asthma control (66.2%, standard error [SE] 4.3), assessed school/work asthma triggers (71.3%, SE, 3.9), and endorsed inhaled corticosteroids use (95.5%, SE 2.0). Repeated assessment of the inhaler technique, use of asthma action/treatment plans, and spirometry were lower (39.7%, SE 4.0; 30.6%, SE 3.6; 44.7%, SE 4.1, respectively). Compared with pulmonologists, more allergists almost always performed spirometry (56.6% vs 38.6%, P = .06), asked about nighttime awakening (91.9% vs 76.5%, P = .03) and emergency department visits (92.2% vs 76.5%, P = .03), assessed home triggers (70.5% vs 52.6%, P = .06), and performed allergy testing (61.8% vs 21.3%, P < .001). In multivariate analyses, practice-specific characteristics explained differences except for allergy testing. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, allergists and pulmonologists adhere to the asthma guidelines with notable exceptions, including asthma action plan use and inhaler technique assessment. Recommendations with low implementation offer opportunities for further exploration and could serve as targets for increasing guideline uptake.

Primary care clinician adherence with asthma guidelines: the National Asthma Survey of Physicians.

Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n = 1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (≥75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p < 0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.

An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias and Survey Location Variability in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Over the past two decades, a steady decline in response rates on national face-to-face surveys has been documented, with steeper declines observed in recent years. The impact of nonresponse on survey estimates is inconsistent and depends on the correlation between response propensity and the survey estimates. To better understand the impact of declining response rates on the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), potential nonresponse bias (NRB) was investigated. NRB was assessed using three approaches: (a) studying variation within the respondent set; (b) benchmarking and comparisons to external data; and (c) comparing alternative weighting adjustments. Because NHANES only samples 30 counties in every 2-year cycle, the sample of counties in any given cycle may be an outlier on some characteristics. Such sampling variability may compound the effects of NRB. For this reason, the representativeness of the 2017-2018 NHANES counties was examined by comparing: (a) the characteristics of the 2017-2018 sampled counties with those from prior cycles; (b) each sampled county with the average of all the counties in the sampling stratum from which that county was selected; and (c) the 2017-2018 counties with 5,000 other samples that could have been drawn under the same sample design using a simulation study. The NRB analyses showed that the 2017-2018 NHANES sample had a lower proportion of college graduates and higher-income individuals compared with prior cycles. Additionally, the 2017-2018 NHANES counties had lower proportions of college graduates and lower mean incomes compared with counties from prior cycles and counties not selected in 2017-2018, which exacerbated the effects of NRB. Weighting adjustments used in prior cycles were not sufficient to address the bias in the 2017-2018 NHANES. Instead, enhanced weighting adjustments for education and income reduced the bias resulting from nonresponse and location sampling variability.

Characteristics of Asthma Visits to Physician Offices in the United States: 2012-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Objective-This report describes asthma visits to offices of nonfederally employed U.S. physicians. Methods-Asthma visits are defined by the first-listed diagnosis from National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. Asthma visit rates among the general population and among persons with asthma (at-risk rates) were estimated. Trends from 2001 through 2016 were assessed. Asthma visit characteristics were assessed for the period 2012-2015 (the diagnostic coding system was changed to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification in 2016). The consistency of visit characteristics with national asthma guidelines was also assessed. Results-From 2001 through 2016, population-based asthma visit rates declined from 40.2 to 30.7 visits per 1,000 persons, and at-risk visit rates from 55.5 to 36.7 visits per 100 persons with asthma. During 2012-2015, there was an annual average of 10.2 million asthma visits: 63.5% were by non-Hispanic white persons, 53.8% by female patients, and 32.5% by children under age 15 years. Population and at-risk visit rates were similar across sex and racial and ethnic groups. Children aged 0-4 years had the highest at-risk asthma visit rate. Primary care physicians saw 60.0% of asthma visits. Asthma severity was documented in 34.5% of visits, asthma control in 40.9%, spirometry in 14.9%, and peak flow in 3.3%. Asthma education was provided in 21.4% of asthma visits and asthma action plans in 9.9%. Bronchodilators were the most commonly mentioned medication class (24.9%). A quick-acting relief medication was the most frequently mentioned (albuterol, 16.9%), followed by asthma-control medications (montelukast, 4.7%; fluticasone-salmeterol, 3.7%; and prednisone, 2.7%). Conclusions-Asthma physician office visit rates declined from 2001 through 2016. During 2012-2015, primary care providers saw nearly two-thirds of asthma visits. Physician adherence to documenting asthma severity or control and providing patient education appeared low. Quick-acting relief medication was the most frequently prescribed medication.