Risk of Clinical Severity by Age and Race/Ethnicity Among Adults Hospitalized for COVID-19-United States, March-September 2020.

BACKGROUND: Older adults and people from certain racial and ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths. METHODS: Using data from the Premier Healthcare Database on 181 813 hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19 during March-September 2020, we applied multivariable log-binomial regression to assess the associations between age and race/ethnicity and COVID-19 clinical severity (intensive care unit [ICU] admission, invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], and death) and to determine whether the impact of age on clinical severity differs by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, 84 497 (47%) patients were admitted to the ICU, 29 078 (16%) received IMV, and 27 864 (15%) died in the hospital. Increased age was strongly associated with clinical severity when controlling for underlying medical conditions and other covariates; the strength of this association differed by race/ethnicity. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, risk of death was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99) and higher among Hispanic/Latino patients (risk ratio [RR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20), non-Hispanic Asian patients (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23), and patients of other racial and ethnic groups (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21). Risk of ICU admission and risk of IMV were elevated among some racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that age is a driver of poor outcomes among hospitalized persons with COVID-19. Additionally, clinical severity may be elevated among patients of some racial and ethnic minority groups. Public health strategies to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rates among older adults and racial and ethnic minorities are essential to reduce poor outcomes.

An Assessment of Information Exchange Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities to Support US Disease Surveillance in 3 States.

BACKGROUND: State and local public health agencies collect and use surveillance data to identify outbreaks, track cases, investigate causes, and implement measures to protect the public's health through various surveillance systems and data exchange practices. PURPOSE: The purpose of this assessment was to better understand current practices at state and local public health agencies for collecting, managing, processing, reporting, and exchanging notifiable disease surveillance information. METHODS: Over an 18-month period (January 2014-June 2015), we evaluated the process of data exchange between surveillance systems, reporting burdens, and challenges within 3 states (California, Idaho, and Massachusetts) that were using 3 different reporting systems. RESULTS: All 3 states use a combination of paper-based and electronic information systems for managing and exchanging data on reportable conditions within the state. The flow of data from local jurisdictions to the state health departments varies considerably. When state and local information systems are not interoperable, manual duplicative data entry and other work-arounds are often required. The results of the assessment show the complexity of disease reporting at the state and local levels and the multiple systems, processes, and resources engaged in preparing, processing, and transmitting data that limit interoperability and decrease efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Through this structured assessment, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a better understanding of the complexities for surveillance of using commercial off-the-shelf data systems (California and Massachusetts), and CDC-developed National Electronic Disease Surveillance System Base System. More efficient data exchange and use of data will help facilitate interoperability between National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance Systems.

Unexpected decline in tuberculosis cases coincident with economic recession - United States, 2009.

BACKGROUND: Since 1953, through the cooperation of state and local health departments, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has collected information on incident cases of tuberculosis (TB) disease in the United States. In 2009, TB case rates declined -11.4%, compared to an average annual -3.8% decline since 2000. The unexpectedly large decline raised concerns that TB cases may have gone unreported. To address the unexpected decline, we examined trends from multiple sources on TB treatment initiation, medication sales, and laboratory and genotyping data on culture-positive TB. METHODS: We analyzed 142,174 incident TB cases reported to the U. S. National Tuberculosis Surveillance System (NTSS) during January 1, 2000-December 31, 2009; TB control program data from 59 public health reporting areas; self-reported data from 50 CDC-funded public health laboratories; monthly electronic prescription claims for new TB therapy prescriptions; and complete genotyping results available for NTSS cases. Accounting for prior trends using regression and time-series analyses, we calculated the deviation between observed and expected TB cases in 2009 according to patient and clinical characteristics, and assessed at what point in time the deviation occurred. RESULTS: The overall deviation in TB cases in 2009 was -7.9%, with -994 fewer cases reported than expected (P < .001). We ruled out evidence of surveillance underreporting since declines were seen in states that used new software for case reporting in 2009 as well as states that did not, and we found no cases unreported to CDC in our examination of over 5400 individual line-listed reports in 11 areas. TB cases decreased substantially among both foreign-born and U.S.-born persons. The unexpected decline began in late 2008 or early 2009, and may have begun to reverse in late 2009. The decline was greater in terms of case counts among foreign-born than U.S.-born persons; among the foreign-born, the declines were greatest in terms of percentage deviation from expected among persons who had been in the United States less than 2 years. Among U.S.-born persons, the declines in percentage deviation from expected were greatest among homeless persons and substance users. Independent information systems (NTSS, TB prescription claims, and public health laboratories) reported similar patterns of declines. Genotyping data did not suggest sudden decreases in recent transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments show that the decline in reported TB was not an artifact of changes in surveillance methods; rather, similar declines were found through multiple data sources. While the steady decline of TB cases before 2009 suggests ongoing improvement in TB control, we were not able to identify any substantial change in TB control activities or TB transmission that would account for the abrupt decline in 2009. It is possible that other multiple causes coincident with economic recession in the United States, including decreased immigration and delayed access to medical care, could be related to TB declines. Our findings underscore important needs in addressing health disparities as we move towards TB elimination in the United States.

Assessment of the infectious diseases surveillance system of the Republic of Armenia: an example of surveillance in the Republics of the former Soviet Union.

BACKGROUND: Before 1991, the infectious diseases surveillance systems (IDSS) of the former Soviet Union (FSU) were centrally planned in Moscow. The dissolution of the FSU resulted in economic stresses on public health infrastructure. At the request of seven FSU Ministries of Health, we performed assessments of the IDSS designed to guide reform. The assessment of the Armenian infectious diseases surveillance system (AIDSS) is presented here as a prototype. DISCUSSION: We performed qualitative assessments using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. Until 1996, the AIDSS collected aggregate and case-based data on 64 infectious diseases. It collected information on diseases of low pathogenicity (e.g., pediculosis) and those with no public health intervention (e.g., infectious mononucleosis). The specificity was poor because of the lack of case definitions. Most cases were investigated using a lengthy, non-disease-specific case-report form Armenian public health officials analyzed data descriptively and reported data upward from the local to national level, with little feedback. Information was not shared across vertical programs. Reform should focus on enhancing usefulness, efficiency, and effectiveness by reducing the quantity of data collected and revising reporting procedures and information types; improving the quality, analyses, and use of data at different levels; reducing system operations costs; and improving communications to reporting sources. These recommendations are generalizable to other FSU republics. SUMMARY: The AIDSS was complex and sensitive, yet costly and inefficient. The flexibility, representativeness, and timeliness were good because of a comprehensive health-care system and compulsory reporting. Some data were questionable and some had no utility.