Mortality Surveillance for the COVID-19 Pandemic: Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Multiple System Strategy.

Mortality surveillance systems can have limitations, including reporting delays, incomplete reporting, missing data, and insufficient detail on important risk or sociodemographic factors that can impact the accuracy of estimates of current trends, disease severity, and related disparities across subpopulations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used multiple data systems during the COVID-19 emergency response-line-level case‒death surveillance, aggregate death surveillance, and the National Vital Statistics System-to collectively provide more comprehensive and timely information on COVID-19‒associated mortality necessary for informed decisions. This article will review in detail the line-level, aggregate, and National Vital Statistics System surveillance systems and the purpose and use of each. This retrospective review of the hybrid surveillance systems strategy may serve as an example for adaptive informational approaches needed over the course of future public health emergencies. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print July 25, 2024:e1-e10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307743).

Public Health Surveillance in Electronic Health Records: Lessons From PCORnet.

Introduction: PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, is a large research network of health systems that map clinical data to a standardized data model. In 2018, we expanded existing infrastructure to facilitate use for public health surveillance. We describe benefits and challenges of using PCORnet for surveillance and describe case studies. Methods: In 2018, infrastructure enhancements included addition of a table to store patients' residential zip codes and expansion of a modular program to generate population health statistics across conditions. Chronic disease surveillance case studies conducted in 2019 assessed atrial fibrillation (AF) and cirrhosis. In April 2020, PCORnet established an infrastructure to support COVID-19 surveillance with institutions frequently updating their electronic health record data. Results: By August 2023, 53 PCORnet sites (84%) had a 5-digit zip code available on at least 95% of their patient populations. Among 148,223 newly diagnosed AF patients eligible for oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, 43.3% were on any OAC (17.8% warfarin, 28.5% any novel oral anticoagulant) within a year of the AF diagnosis. Among 60,268 patients with cirrhosis (2015-2019), common documented etiologies included unknown (48%), hepatitis C infection (23%), and alcohol use (22%). During October 2022 through December 2023, across 34 institutions, the proportion of COVID-19 patients who were cared for in the inpatient setting was 9.1% among 887,051 adults aged 20 years or older and 6.0% among 139,148 children younger than 20 years. Conclusions: PCORnet provides important data that may augment traditional public health surveillance programs across diverse conditions. PCORnet affords longitudinal population health assessments among large catchments of the population with clinical, treatment, and geographic information, with capabilities to deliver rapid information needed during public health emergencies.

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).

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.

COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Among Medicare Beneficiaries With and Without Disabilities - United States, January 1, 2020-November 20, 2021.

Approximately 27% of adults in the United States live with a disability,* some of whom qualify for Medicare benefits. Persons with disabilities are at increased risk for severe COVID-19-associated outcomes compared with the general population (1); however, existing studies have limited generalizability† or only pertain to a specific disability (e.g., intellectual) (2). Older age is also associated with COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death, but the extent to which age might contribute to increased risk for severe COVID-19-associated outcomes among persons with disabilities is unknown (3). To describe the impact of COVID-19 on persons with disabilities and whether and how age contributes to disease rates, CDC assessed COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations during January 2020-November 2021, among Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥18 years who were either eligible because of a disability (disability-eligible§) or only eligible because of age ≥65 years (age-eligible). COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates were higher in the disability-eligible group (10,978 and 3,148 per 100,000 population, respectively) throughout the study period compared with the age-eligible group (8,102 and 2,129 per 100,000 population, respectively). Both COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates increased with age in both disability- and age-eligible beneficiaries. American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons had the highest disability-eligible (4,962 per 100,000) and age-eligible (5,024 per 100,000) hospitalization rates. Among all other racial and ethnic groups, hospitalization rates were higher among disability-eligible than among age-eligible patients. COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates among disability-eligible Medicare beneficiaries were disproportionally higher than rates among age-eligible beneficiaries. Collection of disability status as a core demographic variable in public health surveillance data and identification, as well as the addition of disability questions in other existing data sources can guide research and development of interventions for persons with disabilities. Efforts to increase access to and use of COVID-19 prevention and treatment strategies, including activities that support equitable vaccine access regardless of the substantial challenges that older adults and persons with disability face, are critical to reducing severe COVID-19-associated outcomes among these groups.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Association Between Social Vulnerability and a County's Risk for Becoming a COVID-19 Hotspot - United States, June 1-July 25, 2020.

Poverty, crowded housing, and other community attributes associated with social vulnerability increase a community's risk for adverse health outcomes during and following a public health event (1). CDC uses standard criteria to identify U.S. counties with rapidly increasing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence (hotspot counties) to support health departments in coordinating public health responses (2). County-level data on COVID-19 cases during June 1-July 25, 2020 and from the 2018 CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) were analyzed to examine associations between social vulnerability and hotspot detection and to describe incidence after hotspot detection. Areas with greater social vulnerabilities, particularly those related to higher representation of racial and ethnic minority residents (risk ratio [RR] = 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4-6.4), density of housing units per structure (RR = 3.1; 95% CI = 2.7-3.6), and crowded housing units (i.e., more persons than rooms) (RR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.8-2.3), were more likely to become hotspots, especially in less urban areas. Among hotspot counties, those with greater social vulnerability had higher COVID-19 incidence during the 14 days after detection (212-234 cases per 100,000 persons for highest SVI quartile versus 35-131 cases per 100,000 persons for other quartiles). Focused public health action at the federal, state, and local levels is needed not only to prevent communities with greater social vulnerability from becoming hotspots but also to decrease persistently high incidence among hotspot counties that are socially vulnerable.

Potential Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Emergency Departments for Acute Life-Threatening Conditions - United States, January-May 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Subsequently, states enacted stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and reduce the burden on the U.S. health care system. CDC* and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)† recommended that health care systems prioritize urgent visits and delay elective care to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in health care settings. By May 2020, national syndromic surveillance data found that emergency department (ED) visits had declined 42% during the early months of the pandemic (1). This report describes trends in ED visits for three acute life-threatening health conditions (myocardial infarction [MI, also known as heart attack], stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis), immediately before and after declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a national emergency. These conditions represent acute events that always necessitate immediate emergency care, even during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 10 weeks following the emergency declaration (March 15-May 23, 2020), ED visits declined 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis, compared with the preceding 10-week period (January 5-March 14, 2020). EDs play a critical role in diagnosing and treating life-threatening conditions that might result in serious disability or death. Persons experiencing signs or symptoms of serious illness, such as severe chest pain, sudden or partial loss of motor function, altered mental state, signs of extreme hyperglycemia, or other life-threatening issues, should seek immediate emergency care, regardless of the pandemic. Clear, frequent, highly visible communication from public health and health care professionals is needed to reinforce the importance of timely care for medical emergencies and to assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines that help ensure the safety of their patients and health care personnel.

Trends in Number and Distribution of COVID-19 Hotspot Counties - United States, March 8-July 15, 2020.

The geographic areas in the United States most affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have changed over time. On May 7, 2020, CDC, with other federal agencies, began identifying counties with increasing COVID-19 incidence (hotspots) to better understand transmission dynamics and offer targeted support to health departments in affected communities. Data for January 22-July 15, 2020, were analyzed retrospectively (January 22-May 6) and prospectively (May 7-July 15) to detect hotspot counties. No counties met hotspot criteria during January 22-March 7, 2020. During March 8-July 15, 2020, 818 counties met hotspot criteria for ≥1 day; these counties included 80% of the U.S. population. The daily number of counties meeting hotspot criteria peaked in early April, decreased and stabilized during mid-April-early June, then increased again during late June-early July. The percentage of counties in the South and West Census regions* meeting hotspot criteria increased from 10% and 13%, respectively, during March-April to 28% and 22%, respectively, during June-July. Identification of community transmission as a contributing factor increased over time, whereas identification of outbreaks in long-term care facilities, food processing facilities, correctional facilities, or other workplaces as contributing factors decreased. Identification of hotspot counties and understanding how they change over time can help prioritize and target implementation of U.S. public health response activities.

State and Regional Variation in Prescription- and Payment-Related Promoters of Adherence to Blood Pressure Medication.

INTRODUCTION: Medication adherence can improve hypertension management. How blood pressure medications are prescribed and purchased can promote or impede adherence. METHODS: We used comprehensive dispensing data on prescription blood pressure medication from Symphony Health's 2017 Integrated Dataverse to assess how prescription- and payment-related factors that promote medication adherence (ie, fixed-dose combinations, generic formulations, mail order, low-cost or no-copay medications) vary across US states and census regions and across the market segments (grouped by patient age, prescriber type, and payer type) responsible for the greatest number of blood pressure medication fills. RESULTS: In 2017, 706.5 million prescriptions for blood pressure medication were filled, accounting for $29.0 billion in total spending (17.0% incurred by patients). As a proportion of all fills, factors that promoted adherence varied by state: fixed-dose combinations (from 5.8% in Maine to 17.9% in Mississippi); generic formulations (from 95.2% in New Jersey to 98.4% in Minnesota); mail order (from 4.7% in Rhode Island to 14.5% in Delaware); and lower or no copayment (from 56.6% in Utah to 72.8% in California). Furthermore, mean days' supply per fill (from 43.1 in Arkansas to 63.8 in Maine) and patient spending per therapy year (from $38 in Hawaii to $76 in Georgia) varied. Concentration of adherence factors differed by market segment. Patients aged 18 to 64 with a primary care physician prescriber and Medicaid coverage had the lowest concentration of fixed-dose combination fills, mean days' supply per fill, and patient spending per therapy year. Patients aged 65 years or older with a primary care physician prescriber and commercial insurance had the highest concentration of fixed-dose combinations fills and mail order fills. CONCLUSION: Addressing regional and market segment variation in factors promoting blood pressure medication adherence may increase adherence and improve hypertension management.

Stagnating National Declines in Stroke Mortality Mask Widespread County-Level Increases, 2010-2016.

Background and Purpose- Recent national and state-level trends show a stalling or reversal of previously declining stroke death rates. These national trends may mask local geographic variation and changes in stroke mortality. We assessed county-level trends in stroke mortality among adults aged 35 to 64 and ≥65 years. Methods- We used data from National Vital Statistics Systems and a Bayesian multivariate space-time conditional autoregressive model to estimate age-standardized annual stroke death rates for 2010 through 2016 among middle-aged adults (35-64 years) and older adults (≥65 years) in US counties. We used log-linear regression models to estimate average annual and total percent change in stroke mortality during the period. Results- Nationally, the annual percent change in stroke mortality from 2010 to 2016 was -0.7% (95% CI, -4.2% to 3.0%) among middle-aged adults and -3.5% (95% CI, -10.7% to 4.3%) among older adults, resulting in 2016 rates of 15.0 per 100 000 and 259.8 per 100 000, respectively. Increasing county-level stroke mortality was more prevalent among middle-aged adults (56.6% of counties) compared with among older adults (26.1% of counties). About half (48.3%) of middle-aged adults, representing 60.2 million individuals, lived in counties in which stroke mortality increased. Conclusions- County-level increases in stroke mortality clarify previously reported national and state-level trends, particularly among middle-aged adults. Roughly 3×as many counties experienced increases in stroke death rates for middle-aged adults compared with older adults. This highlights a need to address stroke prevention and treatment for middle-aged adults while continuing efforts to reduce stroke mortality among the more highly burdened older adults. Efforts to reverse these troubling local trends will likely require joint public health and clinical efforts to develop innovative and integrated approaches for stroke prevention and care, with a focus on community-level characteristics that support stroke-free living for all.

Modeling the Health and Budgetary Impacts of a Team-based Hypertension Care Intervention That Includes Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the potential health and budgetary impacts of implementing a pharmacist-involved team-based hypertension management model in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: In 2017, we evaluated a pharmacist-involved team-based care intervention among 3 targeted groups using a microsimulation model designed to estimate cardiovascular event incidence and associated health care spending in a cross-section of individuals representative of the US population: implementing it among patients with: (1) newly diagnosed hypertension; (2) persistently (≥1 year) uncontrolled blood pressure (BP); or (3) treated, yet persistently uncontrolled BP-and report outcomes over 5 and 20 years. We describe the spending thresholds for each intervention strategy to achieve budget neutrality in 5 years from a payer's perspective. RESULTS: Offering this intervention could prevent 22.9-36.8 million person-years of uncontrolled BP and 77,200-230,900 heart attacks and strokes in 5 years (83.8-174.8 million and 393,200-922,900 in 20 years, respectively). Health and economic benefits strongly favored groups 2 and 3. Assuming an intervention cost of $525 per enrollee, the intervention generates 5-year budgetary cost-savings only for Medicare among groups 2 and 3. To achieve budget neutrality in 5 years across all groups, intervention costs per person need to be around $35 for Medicaid, $180 for private insurance, and $335 for Medicare enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a pharmacist-involved team-based hypertension model could substantially improve BP control and cardiovascular outcomes in the United States. Net cost-savings among groups 2 and 3 make a compelling case for Medicare, but favorable economics may also be possible for private insurers, particularly if innovations could moderately lower the cost of delivering an effective intervention.

Characteristics of Hospitalized and Nonhospitalized Patients in a Nationwide Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury - United States, November 2019.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). As of November 13, 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) have reported 2,172 EVALI cases to CDC, including 42 (1.9%) EVALI-associated deaths. To inform EVALI surveillance, including during the 2019-20 influenza season, case report information supplied by states for hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients with EVALI were analyzed using data collected as of November 5, 2019. Among 2,016 EVALI patients with available data on hospitalization status, 1,906 (95%) were hospitalized, and 110 (5%) were not hospitalized. Demographic characteristics of hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were similar; most were male (68% of hospitalized versus 65% of nonhospitalized patients), and most were aged <35 years (78% of hospitalized versus 74% of nonhospitalized patients). These patients also reported similar use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products (83% of hospitalized versus 84% of nonhospitalized patients). Given the similarity between hospitalized and nonhospitalized EVALI patients, the potential for large numbers of respiratory infections during the emerging 2019-20 influenza season, and the potential difficulty in distinguishing EVALI from respiratory infections, CDC will no longer collect national data on nonhospitalized EVALI patients. Further collection of data on nonhospitalized patients will be at the discretion of individual state, local, and territorial health departments. Candidates for outpatient management of EVALI should have normal oxygen saturation (≥95% while breathing room air), no respiratory distress, no comorbidities that might compromise pulmonary reserve, reliable access to care, strong social support systems, and should be able to ensure follow-up within 24-48 hours of initial evaluation and to seek medical care promptly if respiratory symptoms worsen. Health care providers should emphasize the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months, including persons who use e-cigarette, or vaping, products (2,3).