Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 34
Filtrar
1.
Online J Public Health Inform ; 16: e48300, 2024 Mar 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38478904

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the most prevalent risk factor for mortality globally. Uncontrolled hypertension is associated with excess morbidity and mortality, and nearly one-half of individuals with hypertension do not have the condition under control. Data from electronic health record (EHR) systems may be useful for community hypertension surveillance, filling a gap in local public health departments' community health assessments and supporting the public health data modernization initiatives currently underway. To identify patients with hypertension, computable phenotypes are required. These phenotypes leverage available data elements-such as vitals measurements and medications-to identify patients diagnosed with hypertension. However, there are multiple methodologies for creating a phenotype, and the identification of which method most accurately reflects real-world prevalence rates is needed to support data modernization initiatives. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the comparability of 6 different EHR-based hypertension prevalence estimates with estimates from a national survey. Each of the prevalence estimates was created using a different computable phenotype. The overarching goal is to identify which phenotypes most closely align with nationally accepted estimations. METHODS: Using the 6 different EHR-based computable phenotypes, we calculated hypertension prevalence estimates for Marion County, Indiana, for the period from 2014 to 2015. We extracted hypertension rates from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) for the same period. We used the two 1-sided t test (TOST) to test equivalence between BRFSS- and EHR-based prevalence estimates. The TOST was performed at the overall level as well as stratified by age, gender, and race. RESULTS: Using both 80% and 90% CIs, the TOST analysis resulted in 2 computable phenotypes demonstrating rough equivalence to BRFSS estimates. Variation in performance was noted across phenotypes as well as demographics. TOST with 80% CIs demonstrated that the phenotypes had less variance compared to BRFSS estimates within subpopulations, particularly those related to racial categories. Overall, less variance occurred on phenotypes that included vitals measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that certain EHR-derived prevalence estimates may serve as rough substitutes for population-based survey estimates. These outcomes demonstrate the importance of critically assessing which data elements to include in EHR-based computer phenotypes. Using comprehensive data sources, containing complete clinical data as well as data representative of the population, are crucial to producing robust estimates of chronic disease. As public health departments look toward data modernization activities, the EHR may serve to assist in more timely, locally representative estimates for chronic disease prevalence.

2.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 18(3): e13269, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38494192

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although psychiatric disorders have been associated with reduced immune responses to other vaccines, it remains unknown whether they influence COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study evaluated risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and estimated mRNA VE stratified by psychiatric disorder status. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis of the VISION Network in four US states, the rate of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization between December 2021 and August 2022 was compared across psychiatric diagnoses and by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination status using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 2,436,999 adults, 22.1% had ≥1 psychiatric disorder. The incidence of COVID-19-associated hospitalization was higher among patients with any versus no psychiatric disorder (394 vs. 156 per 100,000 person-years, p < 0.001). Any psychiatric disorder (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.37) and mood (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36), anxiety (aHR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.22-1.45), and psychotic (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74) disorders were each significant independent predictors of hospitalization. Among patients with any psychiatric disorder, aHRs for the association between vaccination and hospitalization were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.25-0.49) after a recent second dose, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11) after a recent third dose, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.17-0.66) after a recent fourth dose, compared to unvaccinated patients. Corresponding VE estimates were 65%, 92%, and 67%, respectively, and were similar among patients with no psychiatric disorder (68%, 92%, and 79%). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric disorders were associated with increased risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. However, mRNA vaccination provided similar protection regardless of psychiatric disorder status, highlighting its benefit for individuals with psychiatric disorders.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trastornos Mentales , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios Retrospectivos , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Vacunación , Hospitalización , ARN Mensajero
3.
Sex Transm Dis ; 51(5): 313-319, 2024 May 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38301626

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are the 2 most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regularly publishes and updates STI Treatment Guidelines. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare treatment rates for CT and GC among public and private providers. METHODS: Data from multiple sources, including electronic health records and Medicaid claims, were linked and integrated. Cases observed during 2016-2020 were defined based on positive laboratory results. We calculated descriptive statistics and odd ratios based on characteristics of providers and patients, stratifying by public versus private providers. Univariate logistic regression models were used to examine the factors associated with recommended treatment. RESULTS: Overall, we found that 82.2% and 63.0% of initial CT and GC episodes, respectively, received Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended treatment. The public STI clinic treated more than 90% of CT and GC cases consistently across the 5-year period. Private providers were significantly less likely to treat first episodes for CT (79.6%) and GC (53.3%; P < 0.01). Other factors associated with a higher likelihood of recommended treatment included being male, being HIV positive, and identifying as Black or multiracial. Among GC cases, 10.8% received nonrecommended treatment; all CT cases with treatment occurred per guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Although these treatment rates are higher than previous studies, there remain significant gaps in STI treatment that require intervention from public health.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Chlamydia , Gonorrea , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Femenino , Neisseria gonorrhoeae , Chlamydia trachomatis , Gonorrea/tratamiento farmacológico , Gonorrea/epidemiología , Gonorrea/prevención & control , Infecciones por Chlamydia/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Chlamydia/epidemiología , Infecciones por Chlamydia/prevención & control , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual/prevención & control , Estudios de Cohortes , Prevalencia
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 78(2): 338-348, 2024 02 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37633258

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 hospitalizations and risk factors for critical outcomes over time. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021-March 2023. We evaluated changes in demographics, clinical characteristics, and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and evaluated critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios [RRs]), stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status. RESULTS: A total of 60 488 COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, and critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all P < .001) between the Delta (June-December, 2021) and post-BA.4/BA.5 (September 2022-March 2023) periods. Hospitalization events with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of ≥4 categories of medical condition categories assessed (32.8%) compared to all hospitalizations (23.0%). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated: adjusted RR, 2.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14-2.41]; vaccinated: adjusted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.56-1.92]) across periods. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time, and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was most strongly associated with critical outcomes.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Hospitalización , Inmunidad Colectiva , Factores de Riesgo
5.
Public Health Rep ; 139(2): 201-207, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37232202

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The Indiana Sickle Cell Data Collection (IN-SCDC) program aims to provide timely, reliable, and locally relevant information on the sickle cell disease (SCD) population in Indiana to inform public health interventions, research, and policy development. We describe the development of the IN-SCDC program and report the prevalence and geographic distribution of people with SCD in Indiana using an integrated data collection approach. METHODS: Using multiple integrated data sources and case definitions established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we classified cases of SCD in Indiana during 2015-2019. We calculated the prevalence and incidence of SCD and described characteristics of people with SCD. RESULTS: We identified 1695 people living with SCD in Indiana during the study period. The median age of people living with SCD was 21 years, and 1474 (87.0%) were Black or African American. Most (n = 1596, 91%) resided in metropolitan counties. The age-adjusted prevalence of SCD was 24.7 cases per 100 000 people. The prevalence of SCD among Black or African American people was 209.3 per 100 000 people. The incidence was 1 in 2608 live births overall and 1 in 446 live births among Black or African American people. Eighty-six deaths were confirmed in this population during 2015-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our results establish a baseline for the IN-SCDC program. Baseline and future surveillance program efforts will help accurately inform standards of care for treatments, identify gaps in coverage and access to care, and provide guidance for legislators and community-based organizations.


Asunto(s)
Anemia de Células Falciformes , Humanos , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Indiana/epidemiología , Prevalencia , Anemia de Células Falciformes/epidemiología , Negro o Afroamericano , Población Negra
6.
JMIR Form Res ; 7: e46413, 2023 Dec 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38150296

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) systems are widely used in the United States to document care delivery and outcomes. Health information exchange (HIE) networks, which integrate EHR data from the various health care providers treating patients, are increasingly used to analyze population-level data. Existing methods for population health surveillance of essential hypertension by public health authorities may be complemented using EHR data from HIE networks to characterize disease burden at the community level. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to derive and validate computable phenotypes (CPs) to estimate hypertension prevalence for population-based surveillance using an HIE network. METHODS: Using existing data available from an HIE network, we developed 6 candidate CPs for essential (primary) hypertension in an adult population from a medium-sized Midwestern metropolitan area in the United States. A total of 2 independent clinician reviewers validated the phenotypes through a manual chart review of 150 randomly selected patient records. We assessed the precision of CPs by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), F1-score, and validity of chart reviews using prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ. We further used the most balanced CP to estimate the prevalence of hypertension in the population. RESULTS: Among a cohort of 548,232 adults, 6 CPs produced PPVs ranging from 71% (95% CI 64.3%-76.9%) to 95.7% (95% CI 84.9%-98.9%). The F1-score ranged from 0.40 to 0.91. The prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ revealed a high percentage agreement of 0.88 for hypertension. Similarly, interrater agreement for individual phenotype determination demonstrated substantial agreement (range 0.70-0.88) for all 6 phenotypes examined. A phenotype based solely on diagnostic codes possessed reasonable performance (F1-score=0.63; PPV=95.1%) but was imbalanced with low sensitivity (47.6%). The most balanced phenotype (F1-score=0.91; PPV=83.5%) included diagnosis, blood pressure measurements, and medications and identified 210,764 (38.4%) individuals with hypertension during the study period (2014-2015). CONCLUSIONS: We identified several high-performing phenotypes to identify essential hypertension prevalence for local public health surveillance using EHR data. Given the increasing availability of EHR systems in the United States and other nations, leveraging EHR data has the potential to enhance surveillance of chronic disease in health systems and communities. Yet given variability in performance, public health authorities will need to decide whether to seek optimal balance or declare a preference for algorithms that lean toward sensitivity or specificity to estimate population prevalence of disease.

7.
Vaccine ; 41(37): 5424-5434, 2023 08 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37479609

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults. METHODS: Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation. RESULTS: We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas Virales , Humanos , Adulto , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización , ARN Mensajero
9.
Lancet Reg Health Am ; 23: 100530, 2023 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37333688

RESUMEN

Background: Understanding the usefulness of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses-particularly given varying disease incidence-is needed to support public health policy. We characterize the benefits of COVID-19 booster doses using number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department encounter. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of immunocompetent adults at five health systems in four U.S. states during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 predominance (December 2021-February 2022). Included patients completed a primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series and were either eligible to or received a booster dose. NNV were estimated using hazard ratios for each outcome (hospitalization and emergency department encounters), with results stratified by three 25-day periods and site. Findings: 1,285,032 patients contributed 938 hospitalizations and 2076 emergency department encounters. 555,729 (43.2%) patients were aged 18-49 years, 363,299 (28.3%) 50-64 years, and 366,004 (28.5%) ≥65 years. Most patients were female (n = 765,728, 59.6%), White (n = 990,224, 77.1%), and non-Hispanic (n = 1,063,964, 82.8%). 37.2% of patients received a booster and 62.8% received only two doses. Median estimated NNV to prevent one hospitalization was 205 (range 44-615) and NNV was lower across study periods for adults aged ≥65 years (110, 46, and 88, respectively) and those with underlying medical conditions (163, 69, and 131, respectively). Median estimated NNV to prevent one emergency department encounter was 156 (range 75-592). Interpretation: The number of patients needed to receive a booster dose was highly dependent on local disease incidence, outcome severity, and patient risk factors for moderate-to-severe disease. Funding: Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention though contract 75D30120C07986 to Westat, Inc. and contract 75D30120C07765 to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

10.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 72(21): 579-588, 2023 May 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37227984

RESUMEN

On September 1, 2022, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a single bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster dose for persons aged ≥12 years who had completed at least a monovalent primary series. Early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates among adults aged ≥18 years showed receipt of a bivalent booster dose provided additional protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits and hospitalizations compared with that in persons who had received only monovalent vaccine doses (1); however, insufficient time had elapsed since bivalent vaccine authorization to assess the durability of this protection. The VISION Network* assessed VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations by time since bivalent vaccine receipt during September 13, 2022-April 21, 2023, among adults aged ≥18 years with and without immunocompromising conditions. During the first 7-59 days after vaccination, compared with no vaccination, VE for receipt of a bivalent vaccine dose among adults aged ≥18 years was 62% (95% CI = 57%-67%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions and 28% (95% CI = 10%-42%) among adults with immunocompromising conditions. Among adults without immunocompromising conditions, VE declined to 24% (95% CI = 12%-33%) among those aged ≥18 years by 120-179 days after vaccination. VE was generally lower for adults with immunocompromising conditions. A bivalent booster dose provided the highest protection, and protection was sustained through at least 179 days against critical outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission or in-hospital death. These data support updated recommendations allowing additional optional bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses for certain high-risk populations. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Enfermedad Crítica , Hospitalización , Adolescente , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Vacunas de ARNm , Vacunas Combinadas
11.
Pediatrics ; 151(5)2023 05 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37026401

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We assessed BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild to moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents through the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 period. METHODS: Using VISION Network records from April 2021 to September 2022, we conducted a test-negative, case-control study assessing VE against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters and hospitalizations using logistic regression, conditioned on month and site, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: We compared 9800 ED/UC cases with 70 232 controls, and 305 hospitalized cases with 2612 controls. During Delta, 2-dose VE against ED/UC encounters at 12 to 15 years was initially 93% (95% confidence interval 89 to 95), waning to 77% (69% to 84%) after ≥150 days. At ages 16 to 17, VE was initially 93% (86% to 97%), waning to 72% (63% to 79%) after ≥150 days. During Omicron, VE at ages 12 to 15 was initially 64% (44% to 77%), waning to 13% (3% to 23%) after ≥150 days; at ages 16 to 17 VE was 31% (10% to 47%) during days 60 to 149, waning to 7% (-8 to 20%) after 150 days. A monovalent booster increased VE to 54% (40% to 65%) at ages 12 to 15 and 46% (30% to 58%) at ages 16 to 17. At ages 5 to 11, 2-dose VE was 49% (33% to 61%) initially and 41% (29% to 51%) after 150 days. During Delta, VE against hospitalizations at ages 12 to 17 was high (>97%), and at ages 16 to 17 remained 98% (73% to 100%) beyond 150 days; during Omicron, hospitalizations were too infrequent to precisely estimate VE. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 protected children and adolescents against mild to moderate and severe COVID-19. VE was lower during Omicron predominance including BA.4/BA.5, waned after dose 2 but increased after a monovalent booster. Children and adolescents should receive all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Vacunación
12.
South Med J ; 116(3): 326-331, 2023 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36863057

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Like traditional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain nicotine, which is known to negatively influence sleep quality. Few studies, however, have examined the relation between e-cigarettes and sleep quality using population-based survey data because of the relatively recent appearance of these products on the market. This study investigated the relation between e-cigarette and cigarette use and sleep duration in Kentucky, a state with high rates of nicotine dependence and related chronic diseases. METHODS: Data from two consecutive years of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey-2016 and 2017-were analyzed using χ2 statistics and multivariable Poisson regression analyses to control for socioeconomic and demographic variables, the presence of other chronic diseases, and traditional cigarette use. RESULTS: This study was conducted using responses from 18,907 Kentucky adults aged 18 years and older. Overall, almost 40% reported short (<7 hours) sleep duration. After adjusting for other covariates, including the presence of chronic diseases, those who had currently or formerly used both traditional and e-cigarettes had the highest risk of short sleep duration. Those who currently or formerly smoked only traditional cigarettes also had significantly higher risk, unlike those who had only used e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents who used e-cigarettes were more likely to report short sleep duration, but only if they currently or formerly smoked traditional cigarettes. Those who used both products, regardless of whether current or former, were more likely to report short sleep duration than those who had used just one of these tobacco products.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Vapeo , Adulto , Humanos , Duración del Sueño , Vapeo/epidemiología , Sistema de Vigilancia de Factor de Riesgo Conductual , Kentucky/epidemiología
13.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(3): e232598, 2023 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36920396

RESUMEN

Importance: Recent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant sublineages, including BA.4 and BA.5, may be associated with greater immune evasion and less protection against COVID-19 after vaccination. Objectives: To evaluate the estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 2, 3, or 4 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among immunocompetent adults during a period of BA.4 or BA.5 predominant circulation; and to evaluate the relative severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients across Omicron BA.1, BA.2 or BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 or BA.5 sublineage periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative case-control study was conducted in 10 states with data from emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalizations from December 16, 2021, to August 20, 2022. Participants included adults with COVID-19-like illness and molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 21, 2022. Exposures: mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 ED or UC encounters, hospitalizations, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death. VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 was estimated, stratified by care setting and vaccine doses (2, 3, or 4 doses vs 0 doses as the reference group). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, demographic and clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared across sublineage periods. Results: During the BA.4 and BA.5 predominant period, there were 82 229 eligible ED and UC encounters among patients with COVID-19-like illness (median [IQR] age, 51 [33-70] years; 49 682 [60.4%] female patients), and 19 114 patients (23.2%) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2; among 21 007 hospitalized patients (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-81] years; 11 209 [53.4%] female patients), 3583 (17.1 %) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Estimated VE against hospitalization was 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) for receipt of 2 vaccine doses at 150 days or more after receipt, 68% (95% CI, 50%-80%) for a third dose 7 to 119 days after receipt, and 36% (95% CI, 29%-42%) for a third dose 120 days or more (median [IQR], 235 [204-262] days) after receipt. Among patients aged 65 years or older who had received a fourth vaccine dose, VE was 66% (95% CI, 53%-75%) at 7 to 59 days after vaccination and 57% (95% CI, 44%-66%) at 60 days or more (median [IQR], 88 [75-105] days) after vaccination. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, ICU admission or in-hospital death occurred in 21.4% of patients during the BA.1 period vs 14.7% during the BA.4 and BA.5 period (standardized mean difference: 0.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of COVID-19 vaccines and illness, VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 illness was lower with increasing time since last dose; estimated VE was higher after receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses compared with a primary series alone.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Eficacia de las Vacunas , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación
14.
J Infect Dis ; 227(12): 1348-1363, 2023 06 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36806690

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Data assessing protection conferred from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron predominance periods in the United States are limited. METHODS: This cohort study included persons ≥18 years who had ≥1 health care encounter across 4 health systems and had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 before 26 August 2021. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection defined the exposure. Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the Delta and Omicron periods; protection was calculated as (1-HR)×100%. RESULTS: Compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons, during Delta predominance, protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was high for those 2- or 3-dose vaccinated and previously infected, 3-dose vaccinated alone, and prior infection alone (range, 91%-97%, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]); during Omicron predominance, estimates were lower (range, 77%-90%). Protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters during Delta predominance was high for those exposure groups (range, 86%-93%); during Omicron predominance, protection remained high for those 3-dose vaccinated with or without a prior infection (76%; 95% CI = 67%-83% and 71%; 95% CI = 67%-73%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios de Cohortes , Vacunación , ARN Mensajero/genética
15.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(9): 1615-1625, 2023 05 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36611252

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage remains lower in communities with higher social vulnerability. Factors such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk and access to healthcare are often correlated with social vulnerability and may therefore contribute to a relationship between vulnerability and observed vaccine effectiveness (VE). Understanding whether these factors impact VE could contribute to our understanding of real-world VE. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from 7 health systems to assess vaccination coverage among patients with medically attended COVID-19-like illness. We then used a test-negative design to assess VE for 2- and 3-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) adult (≥18 years) vaccine recipients across Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) quartiles. SVI rankings were determined by geocoding patient addresses to census tracts; rankings were grouped into quartiles for analysis. RESULTS: In July 2021, primary series vaccination coverage was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (56% vs 36%, respectively). In February 2022, booster dose coverage among persons who had completed a primary series was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (43% vs 30%). VE among 2-dose and 3-dose recipients during the Delta and Omicron BA.1 periods of predominance was similar across SVI quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied substantially by SVI. Differences in VE estimates by SVI were minimal across groups after adjusting for baseline patient factors. However, lower vaccination coverage among more socially vulnerable groups means that the burden of illness is still disproportionately borne by the most socially vulnerable populations.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vulnerabilidad Social , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Cobertura de Vacunación , Eficacia de las Vacunas
16.
Sex Transm Dis ; 50(4): 209-214, 2023 04 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36584164

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are the 2 most common reported sexually transmitted infections in the United States. Current recommendations are to presumptively treat CT and/or GC in persons with symptoms or known contact. This review characterizes the literature around studies with presumptive treatment, including identifying rates of presumptive treatment and overtreatment and undertreatment rates. Of the 18 articles that met our inclusion criteria, 6 pertained to outpatient settings. In the outpatient setting, presumptive treatment rates, for both asymptomatic and symptomic patients, varied from 12% to 100%, and the percent positive of those presumptively treated ranged from 25% to 46%. Three studies also reported data on positive results in patients not presumptively treated, which ranged from 2% to 9%. Two studies reported median follow-up time for untreated, which was roughly 9 days. The remaining 12 articles pertained to the emergency setting where presumptive treatment rates, for both asymptomatic and symptomic patients, varied from 16% to 91%, the percent positive following presumptive treatment ranged from 14% to 59%. Positive results without presumptive treatment ranged from 4% to 52%. Two studies reported the percent positive without any treatment (6% and 32%, respectively) and one reported follow-up time for untreated infections (median, 4.8 days). Rates of presumptive treatment, as well as rates of overtreatment or undertreatment vary widely across studies and within care settings. Given the large variability in presumptive treatment, the focus on urban settings, and minimal focus on social determinants of health, additional studies are needed to guide treatment practices for CT and GC in outpatient and emergency settings.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Chlamydia , Gonorrea , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Neisseria gonorrhoeae , Gonorrea/diagnóstico , Gonorrea/tratamiento farmacológico , Gonorrea/epidemiología , Infecciones por Chlamydia/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Chlamydia/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Chlamydia/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Chlamydia trachomatis
17.
J Infect Dis ; 227(8): 961-969, 2023 04 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36415904

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We assessed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination impact on illness severity among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, August 2021-March 2022. METHODS: We evaluated differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital death, and length of stay among vaccinated (2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses) versus unvaccinated patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized for ≥24 hours with COVID-19-like illness and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular testing. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for ICU admission and death and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHR) for time to hospital discharge adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time, and local virus circulation. RESULTS: We included 27 149 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalizations. During both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, protection against ICU admission was strongest among 3-dose vaccinees compared with unvaccinated patients (Delta OR, 0.52 [95% CI, .28-.96]; Omicron OR, 0.69 [95% CI, .54-.87]). During both periods, risk of in-hospital death was lower among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients but ORs overlapped across vaccination strata. We observed SHR >1 across all vaccination strata in both periods indicating faster discharge for vaccinated patients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower rates of ICU admission and in-hospital death in both Delta and Omicron periods compared with being unvaccinated.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , Adolescente , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Vacunas de ARNm
18.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(42): 1335-1342, 2022 Oct 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36264840

RESUMEN

Persons with moderate-to-severe immunocompromising conditions might have reduced protection after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with persons without immunocompromising conditions (1-3). On August 13, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that adults with immunocompromising conditions receive an expanded primary series of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP followed with recommendations on September 23, 2021, for a fourth (booster) dose and on September 1, 2022, for a new bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, containing components of the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant (4). Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines among persons with immunocompromising conditions since the emergence of the Omicron variant in December 2021 are limited. In the multistate VISION Network,§ monovalent 2-, 3-, and 4-dose mRNA VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization were estimated among adults with immunocompromising conditions¶ hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness,** using a test-negative design comparing odds of previous vaccination among persons with a positive or negative molecular test result (case-patients and control-patients) for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). During December 16, 2021-August 20, 2022, among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive case-patients, 1,815 (36.3%), 1,387 (27.7%), 1,552 (31.0%), and 251 (5.0%) received 0, 2, 3, and 4 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. Among test-negative control-patients during this period, 6,928 (23.7%), 7,411 (25.4%), 12,734 (43.6%), and 2,142 (7.3%) received these respective doses. Overall, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization among adults with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-like illness during Omicron predominance was 36% ≥14 days after dose 2, 69% 7-89 days after dose 3, and 44% ≥90 days after dose 3. Restricting the analysis to later periods when Omicron sublineages BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 were predominant and 3-dose recipients were eligible to receive a fourth dose, VE was 32% ≥90 days after dose 3 and 43% ≥7 days after dose 4. Protection offered by vaccination among persons with immunocompromising conditions during Omicron predominance was moderate even after a 3-dose monovalent primary series or booster dose. Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP recommendations. Further, additional protective recommendations for persons with immunocompromising conditions, including the use of prophylactic antibody therapy, early access to and use of antivirals, and enhanced nonpharmaceutical interventions such as well-fitting masks or respirators, should also be considered.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Antivirales , Hospitalización , Vacunas Combinadas , ARN Mensajero , Vacunas de ARNm
19.
BMJ ; 379: e072141, 2022 10 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36191948

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 in adults by time since second, third, or fourth doses, and by age and immunocompromised status. DESIGN: Test negative case-control study. SETTING: Hospitals, emergency departments, and urgent care clinics in 10 US states, 17 January 2021 to 12 July 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 893 461 adults (≥18 years) admitted to one of 261 hospitals or to one of 272 emergency department or 119 urgent care centers for covid-like illness tested for SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was waning of vaccine effectiveness with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine during the omicron and delta periods, and the period before delta was dominant using logistic regression conditioned on calendar week and geographic area while adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, local virus circulation, immunocompromised status, and likelihood of being vaccinated. RESULTS: 45 903 people admitted to hospital with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 213 103 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls), and 103 287 people admitted to emergency department or urgent care with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 531 168 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. In the omicron period, vaccine effectiveness against covid-19 requiring admission to hospital was 89% (95% confidence interval 88% to 90%) within two months after dose 3 but waned to 66% (63% to 68%) by four to five months. Vaccine effectiveness of three doses against emergency department or urgent care visits was 83% (82% to 84%) initially but waned to 46% (44% to 49%) by four to five months. Waning was evident in all subgroups, including young adults and individuals who were not immunocompromised; although waning was morein people who were immunocompromised. Vaccine effectiveness increased among most groups after a fourth dose in whom this booster was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 waned with time after vaccination. The findings support recommendations for a booster dose after a primary series and consideration of additional booster doses.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Adulto Joven
20.
JMIR Cancer ; 8(4): e35310, 2022 Oct 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36201388

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prior studies, generally conducted at single centers with small sample sizes, found that individuals with cancer experience more severe outcomes due to COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although early examinations revealed greater risk of severe outcomes for patients with cancer, the magnitude of the increased risk remains unclear. Furthermore, prior studies were not typically performed using population-level data, especially those in the United States. Given robust prevention measures (eg, vaccines) are available for populations, examining the increased risk of patients with cancer due to SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust population-level analyses of electronic medical records is warranted. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among recently diagnosed adults with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with cancer between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, using electronic health records linked to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to estimate survival during the COVID-19 period (January 15, 2020, to December 31, 2020). We further modeled SARS-CoV-2 infection as a time-dependent exposure (immortal time bias) in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for clinical and demographic variables to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) among newly diagnosed adults with cancer. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the above methods among individuals with cancer-staging information. RESULTS: During the study period, 41,924 adults were identified with newly diagnosed cancer, of which 2894 (6.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The population consisted of White (n=32,867, 78.4%), Black (n=2671, 6.4%), Hispanic (n=832, 2.0%), and other (n=5554, 13.2%) racial backgrounds, with both male (n=21,354, 50.9%) and female (n=20,570, 49.1%) individuals. In the COVID-19 period analysis, after adjusting for age, sex, race or ethnicity, comorbidities, cancer type, and region, the risk of death increased by 91% (adjusted HR 1.91; 95% CI 1.76-2.09) compared to the pre-COVID-19 period (January 1, 2019, to January 14, 2020) after adjusting for other covariates. In the adjusted time-dependent analysis, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 6.91; 95% CI 6.06-7.89). Mortality increased 2.5 times among adults aged 65 years and older (adjusted HR 2.74; 95% CI 2.26-3.31) compared to adults 18-44 years old, among male (adjusted HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.14-1.32) compared to female individuals, and those with ≥2 chronic conditions (adjusted HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.94-2.31) compared to those with no comorbidities. Risk of mortality was 9% higher in the rural population (adjusted HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18) compared to adult urban residents. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight increased risk of death is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with a recent diagnosis of cancer. Elevated risk underscores the importance of adhering to social distancing, mask adherence, vaccination, and regular testing among the adult cancer population.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...