Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 11(1)2024 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38692710

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, minoritised communities (racial and ethnic) have suffered disproportionately from COVID-19 compared with non-Hispanic white communities. In a large cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in a healthcare system spanning five adult hospitals, we analysed outcomes of patients based on race and ethnicity. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients 18 years or older admitted to five hospitals in the mid-Atlantic area between 4 March 2020 and 27 May 2022 with confirmed COVID-19. Participants were divided into four groups based on their race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, Latinx and other. Propensity score weighted generalised linear models were used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 9651 participants in the cohort, more than half were aged 18-64 years old (56%) and 51% of the cohort were females. Non-Hispanic white patients had higher mortality (p<0.001) and longer hospital length-of-stay (p<0.001) than Latinx and non-Hispanic black patients. DISCUSSION: In this large multihospital cohort of patients admitted with COVID-19, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients did not have worse outcomes than white patients. Such findings likely reflect how the complex range of factors that resulted in a life-threatening and disproportionate impact of incidence on certain vulnerable populations by COVID-19 in the community was offset through admission at well-resourced hospitals and healthcare systems. However, there continues to remain a need for efforts to address the significant pre-existing race and ethnicity inequities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic to be better prepared for future public health emergencies.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Mortalidade Hospitalar , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Negro ou Afro-Americano/estatística & dados numéricos , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/etnologia , COVID-19/terapia , Minorias Étnicas e Raciais/estatística & dados numéricos , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/etnologia , Hispânico ou Latino/estatística & dados numéricos , Mortalidade Hospitalar/etnologia , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , População Branca/estatística & dados numéricos , Brancos
2.
Microbiol Spectr ; 12(3): e0252523, 2024 Mar 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38349164

RESUMO

We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted.IMPORTANCEAccurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Teste para COVID-19 , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa