Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes in the US, March 1, 2020, to January 2, 2021.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Woolf SH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019132 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7330820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEstimating COVID-19 mortality is impeded by uncertainties in cause of death coding. In contrast, age-adjusted excess all-cause mortality is a robust indicator of how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts public health. However, in addition to COVID-19 deaths, excess mortality potentially also reflects indirect negative effects of public health measures aiming to contain the pandemic.ObjectivesThe study examines whether excess mortality in Germany between January 2020 and July 2021 is consistent with fatalities attributed to COVID-19 or may be partially due to indirect effects of public health measures.MethodsExcess mortality trends for the period from January 2020 to July 2021 were checked for consistency with deaths attributed to COVID-19 in both the German federal states and districts of Rhineland-Palatinate. The expected monthly mortality rates were predicted based on data from 2015-2019, taking into account the population demographics, air temperature, seasonal influenza activity, and cyclic and long-term time trends RESULTS: COVID-19-attributed mortality was included in the 95% prediction uncertainty intervals for excess mortality in 232 of 304 (76.3%) month-state combinations and in 607 of 684 (88.7%) month-district combinations. The Spearman rank correlation between excess mortality and COVID-19-attributed mortality across federal states was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [0.31; 0.53]) and 0.21 (95% confidence interval [0.13; 0.29]) across districts.ConclusionsThe good agreement of spatiotemporal excess mortality patterns with COVID-19 attributed mortality is consistent with the assumption that indirect adverse effects from public health interventions to contain the COVID-19 pandemic did not substantially contribute to excess mortality in Germany between January 2020 and July 2021.
| S-EPMC8643124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Excess deaths, including all-causes mortality, were confirmed for the first time in Japan in April 2021. However, little is known about the indirect effects of COVID-19 on the number of non-COVID-19-related deaths. We then estimated the excess deaths from non-COVID-19-related causes in Japan and its 47 prefectures from January 2020 through May 2021 by place of death. Vital statistical data on deaths were obtained from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Using quasi-Poisson regression models, we estimated the expected weekly number of deaths due to all-causes excluding COVID-19 (non-COVID-19) and due to respiratory disease, circulatory disease, malignant neoplasms, and senility. Estimates were made separately for deaths in all locations, as well as for deaths in hospitals and clinics, in nursing homes and elderly care facilities, and at home. We defined a week with excess deaths as one in which the observed number of deaths exceeded the upper bound of the two-sided 95% prediction interval. Excess death was expressed as a range of differences between the observed and expected number of deaths and the 95% upper bound of the two-sided predictive interval. The excess percentage was calculated as the number of excess deaths divided by the expected number of deaths. At the national level, excess deaths from non-COVID-19-related all-causes were observed during April 19 to May 16, 2021. The largest excess percentage was 2.73-8.58% (excess deaths 689-2161) in the week of May 3-9. Similar trends were observed for all four cause categories. The cause-of-death categories which contributed to the excesses showed heterogeneity among prefectures. When stratified by place of death, excess mortality tended to be observed in nursing homes and elderly care facilities for all categories, in hospitals and clinics for circulatory disease, and at home for respiratory disease, malignant neoplasms, and senility. A caution is necessary that for the lastest three months (March-May 2021), adjusted data were used to account for possible reporting delays.
| S-EPMC9356762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths are captured through the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System and death certificates reported to the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). However, not all COVID-19 deaths are recognized and reported because of limitations in testing, exacerbation of chronic health conditions that are listed as the cause of death, or delays in reporting. Estimating deaths may provide a more comprehensive understanding of total COVID-19-attributable deaths.MethodsWe estimated COVID-19 unrecognized attributable deaths, from March 2020-April 2021, using all-cause deaths reported to NVSS by week and six age groups (0-17, 18-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years) for 50 states, New York City, and the District of Columbia using a linear time series regression model. Reported COVID-19 deaths were subtracted from all-cause deaths before applying the model. Weekly expected deaths, assuming no SARS-CoV-2 circulation and predicted all-cause deaths using SARS-CoV-2 weekly percent positive as a covariate were modelled by age group and including state as a random intercept. COVID-19-attributable unrecognized deaths were calculated for each state and age group by subtracting the expected all-cause deaths from the predicted deaths.FindingsWe estimated that 766,611 deaths attributable to COVID-19 occurred in the United States from March 8, 2020-May 29, 2021. Of these, 184,477 (24%) deaths were not documented on death certificates. Eighty-two percent of unrecognized deaths were among persons aged ≥65 years; the proportion of unrecognized deaths were 0•24-0•31 times lower among those 0-17 years relative to all other age groups. More COVID-19-attributable deaths were not captured during the early months of the pandemic (March-May 2020) and during increases in SARS-CoV-2 activity (July 2020, November 2020-February 2021).InterpretationEstimating COVID-19-attributable unrecognized deaths provides a better understanding of the COVID-19 mortality burden and may better quantify the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8275579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We estimated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality in Brazil for 2020 and 2021 years. We used mortality data (2015-2021) from the Brazilian Health Ministry for forecasting baseline deaths under non-pandemic conditions and to estimate all-cause excess deaths at the country level and stratified by sex, age, ethnicity and region of residence, from March 2020 to December 2021. We also considered the estimation of excess deaths due to specific causes. The estimated all-cause excess deaths were 187 842 (95% PI: 164 122; 211 562, P-Score = 16.1%) for weeks 10-53, 2020, and 441 048 (95% PI: 411 740; 470 356, P-Score = 31.9%) for weeks 1-52, 2021. P-Score values ranged from 1.4% (RS, South) to 38.1% (AM, North) in 2020 and from 21.2% (AL and BA, Northeast) to 66.1% (RO, North) in 2021. Differences among men (18.4%) and women (13.4%) appeared in 2020 only, and the P-Score values were about 30% for both sexes in 2021. Except for youngsters (< 20 years old), all adult age groups were badly hit, especially those from 40 to 79 years old. In 2020, the Indigenous, Black and East Asian descendants had the highest P-Score (26.2 to 28.6%). In 2021, Black (34.7%) and East Asian descendants (42.5%) suffered the greatest impact. The pandemic impact had enormous regional heterogeneity and substantial differences according to socio-demographic factors, mainly during the first wave, showing that some population strata benefited from the social distancing measures when they could adhere to them. In the second wave, the burden was very high for all but extremely high for some, highlighting that our society must tackle the health inequalities experienced by groups of different socio-demographic statuses.
| S-EPMC10212149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn Japan, several studies have reported no excess all-cause deaths (the difference between the observed and expected number of deaths) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020. This study aimed to estimate the weekly excess deaths in Japan's 47 prefectures for 2021 until June 27.Study designVital statistical data on deaths were obtained from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. For this analysis, we used data from January 2012 to June 2021.MethodsA quasi-Poisson regression was used to estimate the expected weekly number of deaths. Excess deaths were expressed as the range of differences between the observed and expected number of all-cause deaths and the 95% upper bound of the one-sided prediction interval.ResultsSince January 2021, excess deaths were observed for the first time in the week corresponding to April 12-18 and have continued through mid-June, with the highest excess percentage occurring in the week corresponding to May 31-June 6 (excess deaths: 1431-2587; excess percentage: 5.95-10.77%). Similarly, excess deaths were observed in consecutive weeks from April to June 2021 in 18 of 47 prefectures.ConclusionsFor the first time since February 2020, when the first COVID-19 death was reported in Japan, excess deaths possibly related to COVID-19 were observed in April 2021 in Japan, during the fourth wave. This may reflect the deaths of non-infected people owing to the disruption that the pandemic has caused.
| S-EPMC8742134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 has caused a pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) which has spread exponentially worldwide. A robust surveillance system is essential for correct estimation of the disease burden and containment of the pandemic. We evaluated the performance of COVID-19 case-based surveillance system in FCT, Nigeria and assessed its key attributes.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional study design, comprising a survey, key informant interview, record review and secondary data analysis. A self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire was administered to key stakeholders to assess the attributes and process of operation of the surveillance system using CDC's Updated Guidelines for Evaluation of Public Health Surveillance System 2001. Data collected alongside surveillance data from March 2020 to January 2021 were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsOut of 69,338 suspected cases, 12,595 tested positive with RT-PCR with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 18%. Healthcare workers were identified as high-risk group with a prevalence of 23.5%. About 82% respondents perceived the system to be simple, 85.5% posited that the system was flexible and easily accommodates changes, 71.4% reported that the system was acceptable and expressed willingness to continue participation. Representativeness of the system was 93%, stability 40%, data quality 56.2% and timeliness 45.5%, estimated result turnaround time (TAT) was suboptimal.ConclusionThe system was found to be useful, simple, flexible, sensitive, acceptable, with good representativeness but the stability, data quality and timeliness was poor. The system meets initial surveillance objectives but rapid expansion of sample collection and testing sites, improvement of TAT, sustainable funding, improvement of electronic database, continuous provision of logistics, supplies and additional trainings are needed to address identified weaknesses, optimize the system performance and meet increasing need of case detection in the wake of rapidly spreading pandemic. More risk-group persons should be tested to improve surveillance effectiveness.
| S-EPMC9009682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Excess mortality has exceeded reported deaths from Covid-19 during the pandemic. This gap may be attributable to deaths that occurred among individuals with undiagnosed Covid-19 infections or indirect consequences of the pandemic response such as interruptions in medical care; distinguishing these possibilities has implications for public health responses. In the present study, we examined patterns of excess mortality over time and by setting (in-hospital or out-of-hospital) and cause of death using death certificate data from California. The estimated number of excess natural-cause deaths from 2020 March 1 to 2021 February 28 (69,182) exceeded the number of Covid-19 diagnosed deaths (53,667) by 29%. Nearly half, 47.4% (32,775), of excess natural-cause deaths occurred out of the hospital, where only 28.6% (9,366) of excess mortality was attributed to Covid-19. Over time, increases or decreases in excess natural non-Covid-19 mortality closely mirrored increases or decreases in Covid-19 mortality. The time series were positively correlated in out-of-hospital settings, particularly at time lags when excess natural-cause deaths preceded reported Covid-19 deaths; for example, when comparing Covid-19 deaths to excess natural-cause deaths in the week prior, the correlation was 0.73. The strong temporal association of reported Covid-19 deaths with excess out-of-hospital deaths from other reported natural-cause causes suggests Covid-19 deaths were undercounted during the first year of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC9272175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reports of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) have been widely published across the world since the onset of the pandemic with varying incidence rates. We retrospectively studied all patients with severe COVID-19 infection who were admitted to our tertiary care center's intensive care units between January 2020 and March 2021, who also had respiratory cultures positive for Aspergillus species. Among a large cohort of 970 patients admitted to the ICU with severe COVID-19 infections during our study period, 48 patients had Aspergillus species growing in respiratory cultures. Based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology (ECMM/ISHAM) consensus criteria, 2 patients in the study had proven CAPA, 9 had probable CAPA, and 37 had possible CAPA. The incidence of CAPA was 5%. The mean duration from a positive COVID-19 test to Aspergillus spp. being recovered from the respiratory cultures was 16 days, and more than half of the patients had preceding fever or worsening respiratory failure despite adequate support and management. Antifungals were given for treatment in 44% of the patients for a mean duration of 13 days. The overall mortality rate in our study population was extremely high with death occurring in 40/48 patients (83%).
| S-EPMC8618928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 mortality, excess mortality, deaths per million population (DPM), infection fatality ratio (IFR) and case fatality ratio (CFR) are reported and compared for many countries globally. These measures may appear objective, however, they should be interpreted with caution.AimWe examined reported COVID-19-related mortality in Belgium from 9 March 2020 to 28 June 2020, placing it against the background of excess mortality and compared the DPM and IFR between countries and within subgroups.MethodsThe relation between COVID-19-related mortality and excess mortality was evaluated by comparing COVID-19 mortality and the difference between observed and weekly average predictions of all-cause mortality. DPM were evaluated using demographic data of the Belgian population. The number of infections was estimated by a stochastic compartmental model. The IFR was estimated using a delay distribution between infection and death.ResultsIn the study period, 9,621 COVID-19-related deaths were reported, which is close to the excess mortality estimated using weekly averages (8,985 deaths). This translates to 837 DPM and an IFR of 1.5% in the general population. Both DPM and IFR increase with age and are substantially larger in the nursing home population.DiscussionDuring the first pandemic wave, Belgium had no discrepancy between COVID-19-related mortality and excess mortality. In light of this close agreement, it is useful to consider the DPM and IFR, which are both age, sex, and nursing home population-dependent. Comparison of COVID-19 mortality between countries should rather be based on excess mortality than on COVID-19-related mortality.
| S-EPMC8855510 | biostudies-literature