Statewide Interventions and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Mortality in the United States: An Observational Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Social distancing is encouraged to mitigate viral spreading during outbreaks. However, the association between distancing and patient-centered outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been demonstrated. In the United States, social distancing orders are implemented at the state level with variable timing of onset. Emergency declarations and school closures were 2 early statewide interventions.Methods
To determine whether later distancing interventions were associated with higher mortality, we performed a state-level analysis in 55 146 COVID-19 nonsurvivors. We tested the association between timing of emergency declarations and school closures with 28-day mortality using multivariable negative binomial regression. Day 1 for each state was set to when they recorded ≥ 10 deaths. We performed sensitivity analyses to test model assumptions.Results
At time of analysis, 37 of 50 states had ≥ 10 deaths and 28 follow-up days. Both later emergency declaration (adjusted mortality rate ratio [aMRR] 1.05 per day delay; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.09; P = .040) and later school closure (aMRR 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09; P = .008) were associated with more deaths. When assessing all 50 states and setting day 1 to the day a state recorded its first death, delays in declaring an emergency (aMRR 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09; P = .020) or closing schools (aMRR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) were associated with more deaths. Results were unchanged when excluding New York and New Jersey.Conclusions
Later statewide emergency declarations and school closure were associated with higher Covid-19 mortality. Each day of delay increased mortality risk 5 to 6%.
SUBMITTER: Yehya N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7454446 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWeeks after issuing social distancing orders to suppress severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and reduce growth in cases of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), all US states and the District of Columbia partially or fully relaxed these measures.MethodsWe identified all statewide social distancing measures that were implemented and/or relaxed in the United States between 10 March and 15 July 2020, triangulating data from state government and third-party sources. Using segmented linear regression, we estimated the extent to which relaxation of social distancing affected epidemic control, as indicated by the time-varying, state-specific effective reproduction number (Rt).ResultsIn the 8 weeks prior to relaxation, mean Rt declined by 0.012 units per day (95% confidence interval [CI], -.013 to -.012), and 46/51 jurisdictions achieved Rt < 1.0 by the date of relaxation. After relaxation of social distancing, Rt reversed course and began increasing by 0.007 units per day (95% CI, .006-.007), reaching a mean Rt of 1.16. Eight weeks later, the mean Rt was 1.16 and only 9/51 jurisdictions were maintaining an Rt < 1.0. Parallel models showed similar reversals in the growth of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Indicators often used to motivate relaxation at the time of relaxation (eg, test positivity rate <5%) predicted greater postrelaxation epidemic growth.ConclusionsWe detected an immediate and significant reversal in SARS-CoV-2 epidemic suppression after relaxation of social distancing measures across the United States. Premature relaxation of social distancing measures undermined the country's ability to control the disease burden associated with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7797755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As of April 2, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in >890,000 cases and >45,000 deaths worldwide, including 239,279 cases and 5,443 deaths in the United States (1,2). In the United States, 22% of the population is made up of infants, children, and adolescents aged <18 years (children) (3). Data from China suggest that pediatric COVID-19 cases might be less severe than cases in adults and that children might experience different symptoms than do adults (4,5); however, disease characteristics among pediatric patients in the United States have not been described. Data from 149,760 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States occurring during February 12-April 2, 2020 were analyzed. Among 149,082 (99.6%) reported cases for which age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) were among children aged <18 years. Data were available for a small proportion of patients on many important variables, including symptoms (9.4%), underlying conditions (13%), and hospitalization status (33%). Among those with available information, 73% of pediatric patients had symptoms of fever, cough, or shortness of breath compared with 93% of adults aged 18-64 years during the same period; 5.7% of all pediatric patients, or 20% of those for whom hospitalization status was known, were hospitalized, lower than the percentages hospitalized among all adults aged 18-64 years (10%) or those with known hospitalization status (33%). Three deaths were reported among the pediatric cases included in this analysis. These data support previous findings that children with COVID-19 might not have reported fever or cough as often as do adults (4). Whereas most COVID-19 cases in children are not severe, serious COVID-19 illness resulting in hospitalization still occurs in this age group. Social distancing and everyday preventive behaviors remain important for all age groups as patients with less serious illness and those without symptoms likely play an important role in disease transmission (6,7).
| S-EPMC7147903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in 5,817,385 reported cases and 362,705 deaths worldwide through May, 30, 2020,† including 1,761,503 aggregated reported cases and 103,700 deaths in the United States.§ Previous analyses during February-early April 2020 indicated that age ?65 years and underlying health conditions were associated with a higher risk for severe outcomes, which were less common among children aged <18 years (1-3). This report describes demographic characteristics, underlying health conditions, symptoms, and outcomes among 1,320,488 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases individually reported to CDC during January 22-May 30, 2020. Cumulative incidence, 403.6 cases per 100,000 persons,¶ was similar among males (401.1) and females (406.0) and highest among persons aged ?80 years (902.0). Among 599,636 (45%) cases with known information, 33% of persons were Hispanic or Latino of any race (Hispanic), 22% were non-Hispanic black (black), and 1.3% were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN). Among 287,320 (22%) cases with sufficient data on underlying health conditions, the most common were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), and chronic lung disease (18%). Overall, 184,673 (14%) patients were hospitalized, 29,837 (2%) were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), and 71,116 (5%) died. Hospitalizations were six times higher among patients with a reported underlying condition (45.4%) than those without reported underlying conditions (7.6%). Deaths were 12 times higher among patients with reported underlying conditions (19.5%) compared with those without reported underlying conditions (1.6%). The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups. These preliminary findings underscore the need to build on current efforts to collect and analyze case data, especially among those with underlying health conditions. These data are used to monitor trends in COVID-19 illness, identify and respond to localized incidence increase, and inform policies and practices designed to reduce transmission in the United States.
| S-EPMC7302472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time.MethodsAdult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined.ResultsThe study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54-77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO.ConclusionsClinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.
| S-EPMC8522394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingNationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system.ParticipantsAll 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion.ResultsOf 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsEarly initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.
| S-EPMC7876672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo examine the association between dexamethasone use and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19.MethodsWe examined the association between dexamethasone use and mortality at AP-HP Greater Paris University hospitals. Study baseline was defined as the date of hospital admission. The primary endpoint was time to death. We compared this endpoint between patients who received dexamethasone and those who did not in time-to-event analyses adjusted for patient characteristics (such as age, sex and comorbidity) and clinical and biological markers of clinical severity of COVID-19, and stratified by the need for respiratory support, i.e. mechanical ventilation or oxygen. The primary analysis was a multivariable Cox regression model.ResultsOf 12 217 adult patients hospitalized with a positive COVID-19 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test, 171 (1.4%) received dexamethasone orally or by intravenous perfusion during the visit. Among patients who required respiratory support, the end-point occurred in 10/63 (15.9%) patients who received dexamethasone and 298/1129 (26.4%) patients who did not. In this group, there was a significant association between dexamethasone use and reduced mortality in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.96, P = .039). Among patients who did not require respiratory support, there was no significant association between dexamethasone use and the endpoint.ConclusionsIn this multicentre observational study, dexamethasone use administered either orally or by intravenous injection at a cumulative dose between 60 mg and 150 mg was associated with reduced mortality among patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support.
| S-EPMC8013383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The experience of individuals with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic to life threatening multi-organ dysfunction. Specific HLA alleles may affect the predisposition to severe COVID-19 because of their role in presenting viral peptides to launch the adaptive immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this population-based case-control study in the midwestern United States, we performed high-resolution HLA typing of 234 cases hospitalized for COVID-19 in the St. Louis metropolitan area and compared their HLA allele frequencies with those of 22,000 matched controls from the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). We identified two predisposing alleles, HLA-DRB1*08:02 in the Hispanic group (OR = 9.0, 95% confidence interval: 2.2-37.9; adjusted p = 0.03) and HLA-A*30:02 in younger African Americans with ages below the median (OR = 2.2, 1.4-3.6; adjusted p = 0.01), and several candidate alleles with potential associations with COVID-19 in African American, White, and Hispanic groups. We also detected risk-associated amino acid residues in the peptide binding grooves of some of these alleles, suggesting the presence of functional associations. These findings support the notion that specific HLA alleles may be protective or predisposing factors to COVID-19. Future consortium analysis of pooled cases and controls is warranted to validate and extend these findings, and correlation with viral peptide binding studies will provide additional evidence for the functional association between HLA alleles and COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8429120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected residents, their families, staff, and operators of congregate care settings. Assisted living (AL) is a type of long-term care setting for older adults who need supportive care but not ongoing nursing care and emphasizes a social model of care provision. Because AL is a type of long-term care, it has at times been referenced along with nursing homes in discussions related to COVID-19 but not recognized for its different care practices that pose unique challenges related to COVID-19; in that manner, it has largely been left out of the COVID-19 discourse, although ~812,000 older adults live in AL. To identify COVID-19 issues specific to AL, stakeholders with expertise in AL operations, policy, practice, and research (n = 42) were recruited to participate in remote interviews between July and September 2020. Using a thematic analysis, we derived the following overarching themes: (1) Policymakers are disconnected from and lack an understanding of the AL context; (2) AL administrators were left to coordinate, communicate, and implement constantly changing guidelines with little support; (3) AL organizations faced limited knowledge of and disparate access to funding and resources; (4) state-level regulatory requirements conflicted with COVID-19 guidelines resulting in uncertainty about which rules to follow; and (5) AL operators struggled to balance public health priorities with promoting their residents' quality of life and well-being. To develop evidence-informed policy and avoid unintended consequences, AL operators, direct care workers, residents, and clinicians practicing in these settings should have opportunities to provide feedback throughout the policy development process, both state and national.
| S-EPMC8170034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA range of public health measures have been implemented to suppress local transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong. We examined the effect of these interventions and behavioural changes of the public on the incidence of COVID-19, as well as on influenza virus infections, which might share some aspects of transmission dynamics with COVID-19.MethodsWe analysed data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, influenza surveillance data in outpatients of all ages, and influenza hospitalisations in children. We estimated the daily effective reproduction number (Rt) for COVID-19 and influenza A H1N1 to estimate changes in transmissibility over time. Attitudes towards COVID-19 and changes in population behaviours were reviewed through three telephone surveys done on Jan 20-23, Feb 11-14, and March 10-13, 2020.FindingsCOVID-19 transmissibility measured by Rt has remained at approximately 1 for 8 weeks in Hong Kong. Influenza transmission declined substantially after the implementation of social distancing measures and changes in population behaviours in late January, with a 44% (95% CI 34-53%) reduction in transmissibility in the community, from an estimated Rt of 1·28 (95% CI 1·26-1·30) before the start of the school closures to 0·72 (0·70-0·74) during the closure weeks. Similarly, a 33% (24-43%) reduction in transmissibility was seen based on paediatric hospitalisation rates, from an Rt of 1·10 (1·06-1·12) before the start of the school closures to 0·73 (0·68-0·77) after school closures. Among respondents to the surveys, 74·5%, 97·5%, and 98·8% reported wearing masks when going out, and 61·3%, 90·2%, and 85·1% reported avoiding crowded places in surveys 1 (n=1008), 2 (n=1000), and 3 (n=1005), respectively.InterpretationOur study shows that non-pharmaceutical interventions (including border restrictions, quarantine and isolation, distancing, and changes in population behaviour) were associated with reduced transmission of COVID-19 in Hong Kong, and are also likely to have substantially reduced influenza transmission in early February, 2020.FundingHealth and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong.
| S-EPMC7164922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a national survey of 2074 US parents of children ≤12 years of age conducted in March 2021, 49.4% reported plans to vaccinate their child for coronavirus disease 2019 when available. Lower income and less education were associated with greater parental vaccine hesitancy/resistance; safety and lack of need were primary reasons for vaccine hesitancy/resistance.
| S-EPMC8286233 | biostudies-literature