Measuring the COVID-19 Mortality Burden in the United States : A Microsimulation Study

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates and Predictors of Vaccine Uptake Among Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From the 2022 National Health Interview Survey

Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rates and predictors of vaccine uptake among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States are unknown. In light of this, we assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates in this population and evaluated predictors of vaccine uptake. Methods Using 2022 survey data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1486 adults with COPD who responded with "yes/no" to whether they had received the COVID-19 vaccine were identified, including those who had received booster doses. A chi-square test was used to ascertain differences between those who had received the vaccine and those who had not, as well as between those who had received booster doses and those who had not. A logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Results A total of 1195 individuals among 1486 respondents with chronic pulmonary disease (78.4%) had been vaccinated against COVID-19, and 789/1195 (62.5%) had received booster shots. The majority of individuals were aged 65 years and above, exceeded the 1+ threshold for the ratio of family income to poverty (RFIP), and were covered by insurance. Positive predictors of COVID-19 vaccination were as follows: age 40 - 64 years (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.31 - 4.19; p=0.004) and 65 years and above (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.36 - 2.72; p<0.001), RFIP threshold of ≥1 (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.42 - 2.88; p<0.001), having a college degree (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.92 - 3.26, p=0.016), and being insured (OR: 3.12, 95% CI: 1.46 - 6.66, p=0.003). The current smoking habit negatively predicted the uptake (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.33 - 0.87, p=0.012). The positive predictors of COVID-19 vaccination boosters were as follows: age 40 - 64 years (OR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.39 - 5.30, p=0.003) and 65 years and above (OR: 4.85, 95% CI: 2.45 - 9.58, p<0.001). Being from the non-Hispanic (NH) black ethnicity negatively predicted receiving the COVID-19 booster (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.85, p=0.007). Conclusions While COVID-19 vaccination rates are fairly satisfactory in COPD patients, the uptake of booster vaccines is relatively lower in this population. Socioeconomic and behavioral factors are associated with poor vaccine uptake, and targeted interventions should be implemented to address these factors.

Symptomology following COVID-19 among adults in Alberta, Canada: an observational survey study

OBJECTIVE

Fatigue, headache, problems sleeping and numerous other symptoms have been reported to be associated with long COVID. However, many of these symptoms coincide with symptoms reported by the general population, possibly exacerbated by restrictions/precautions experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines the symptoms reported by individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 compared with those who tested negative.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

The study was conducted on adult residents in Alberta, Canada, from October 2021 to February 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

We evaluated self-reported symptoms in 7623 adults with positive COVID-19 tests and 1520 adults who tested negative, using surveys adapted from the internationally standardised International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC)-developed COVID-19 long-term follow-up tools. These individuals had an index COVID-19 test date between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2022 and were over 28 days post-COVID-19 testing.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were to identify the symptoms associated with COVID-19 positivity and risk factors for reporting symptoms.

RESULTS

Fatigue was the top reported symptom (42%) among COVID-19-positive respondents, while headache was the top reported symptom (32%) in respondents who tested negative. Compared with those who tested negative, COVID-19-positive individuals reported 1.5 times more symptoms and had higher odds of experiencing 31 out of the 40 listed symptoms during the postinfectious period. These symptoms included olfactory dysfunction, menstruation changes, cardiopulmonary and neurological symptoms. Female sex, middle age (41-55 years), Indigeneity, unemployment, hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) admission at the time of testing and pre-existing health conditions independently predicted a greater number and variety of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide evidence that COVID-19 survivors continue to experience a significant number and variety of symptoms. These findings can help inform targeted strategies for the unequally affected population. It is important to offer appropriate management for symptom relief to those who have survived the acute COVID-19 illness.

[Risk factors for outcome and mortality in hospitalized geriatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection : Data from a hospital of maximum care during in the period of the second corona wave 2020/2021 in Germany]

BACKGROUND

From autumn 2020 until spring 2021 Germany experienced the second wave of SARS-CoV‑2 infections. As in the previous wave, the older population in nursing homes was hard hit by this infection because of the lack of available vaccines. Due to the multimorbidity in this susceptible group the mortality was high.

METHODS

Retrospectively collected patient data of geriatric patients treated from 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021 due to proven SARS-CoV‑2 infection were evaluated concerning the duration of symptoms, hospital stay, and laboratory results. The results are presented descriptively and significance tests were performed with t‑test and log-rank test to reveal some risk factors for a worse outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients aged from 65 to 97 years were included, with a mean mortality rate of 28% and was highest in the age group over 90 years old. Most patients died within the first 10 days of hospitalization. Intensive care treatment prolonged the hospital stay by 6 days, but the average survival time became equal at the end. Risk factors for worse outcome and the need of intensive care treatment were neutrophilia, lymphopenia, high levels of ferritin and high D‑dimer levels on the day of admission. Age, short duration of symptoms and pre-existing dementia, administration of neuroleptic drugs and antidepressants increased the risk of death.

Estimated SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence trends and relationship to reported case prevalence from a repeated, cross-sectional study in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, United States-October 25, 2020-February 26, 2022

Background

Sero-surveillance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can reveal trends and differences in subgroups and capture undetected or unreported infections that are not included in case-based surveillance systems.

Methods

Cross-sectional, convenience samples of remnant sera from clinical laboratories from 51 U.S. jurisdictions were assayed for infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibodies biweekly from October 25, 2020, to July 11, 2021, and monthly from September 6, 2021, to February 26, 2022. Test results were analyzed for trends in infection-induced, nucleocapsid-protein seroprevalence using mixed effects models that adjusted for demographic variables and assay type.

Findings

Analyses of 1,469,792 serum specimens revealed U.S. infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence increased from 8.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.9%-8.1%) in November 2020 to 58.2% (CI: 57.4%-58.9%) in February 2022. The U.S. ratio of the change in estimated seroprevalence to the change in reported case prevalence was 2.8 (CI: 2.8-2.9) during winter 2020-2021, 2.3 (CI: 2.0-2.5) during summer 2021, and 3.1 (CI: 3.0-3.3) during winter 2021-2022. Change in seroprevalence to change in case prevalence ratios ranged from 2.6 (CI: 2.3-2.8) to 3.5 (CI: 3.3-3.7) by region in winter 2021-2022.

Interpretation

Ratios of the change in seroprevalence to the change in case prevalence suggest a high proportion of infections were not detected by case-based surveillance during periods of increased transmission. The largest increases in the seroprevalence to case prevalence ratios coincided with the spread of the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant and with increased accessibility of home testing. Ratios varied by region and season with the highest ratios in the midwestern and southern United States during winter 2021-2022. Our results demonstrate that reported case counts did not fully capture differing underlying infection rates and demonstrate the value of sero-surveillance in understanding the full burden of infection. Levels of infection-induced antibody seroprevalence, particularly spikes during periods of increased transmission, are important to contextualize vaccine effectiveness data as the susceptibility to infection of the U.S. population changes.

Funding

This work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Living with liver disease in the era of COVID-19-the impact of the epidemic and the threat to high-risk populations

The cardinal symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection as the pandemic began in 2020 were cough, fever, and dyspnea, thus characterizing the virus as a predominantly pulmonary disease. While it is apparent that many patients presenting acutely to the hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection have complaints of respiratory symptoms, other vital organs and systems are also being affected. In fact, almost half of COVID-19 hospitalized patients were found to have evidence of some degree of liver injury. Incidence and severity of liver injury in patients with underlying liver disease were even greater. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, from August 1, 2020 to May 31, 2022 there have been a total of 4745738 COVID-19 hospital admissions. Considering the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of liver injury in COVID-19 patients, it is imperative that we as clinicians understand the effects of the virus on the liver and conversely, the effect of underlying hepatobiliary conditions on the severity of the viral course itself. In this article, we review the spectrum of novel studies regarding COVID-19 induced liver injury, compiling data on the effects of the virus in various age and high-risk groups, especially those with preexisting liver disease, in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of this disease process. We also provide an update of the impact of the new Omicron variant and the changing nature of COVID-19 pathogenesis.

Health Care Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for the Cardiovascular Practitioner

There has been substantial excess morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, not all of which was directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and many non-COVID-19 deaths were cardiovascular. The indirect effects of the pandemic have been profound, resulting in a substantial increase in the burden of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors, both in individuals who survived SARS-CoV-2 infection and in people never infected. In this report, we review the direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease burden in COVID-19 survivors as well as the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cardiovascular health of people who were never infected with SARS-CoV-2. We also examine the pandemic effects on health care systems and particularly the care deficits caused (or exacerbated) by health care delayed or foregone during the COVID-19 pandemic. We review the consequences of: (1) deferred/delayed acute care for urgent conditions; (2) the shift to virtual provision of outpatient care; (3) shortages of drugs and devices, and reduced access to: (4) diagnostic testing, (5) cardiac rehabilitation, and (6) homecare services. We discuss the broader implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for cardiovascular health and cardiovascular practitioners as we move forward into the next phase of the pandemic.

Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 remain high despite advances in standard of care therapy, and the role of anti-inflammatory agents that inhibit the interleukin 6/JAK2 pathway is still being elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib vs placebo in the treatment of adults with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial enrolled hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 at 21 centers across the US between June 2020 and February 2021, with approximately 1.5 months of safety follow-up per patient. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to July 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard of care plus pacritinib (400 mg per os on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily on days 2-14) vs placebo, for 14 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) by day 28. All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were randomized to pacritinib (99 patients; 56 men [56.6%]; median [range] age, 60 [19-87] years) or placebo (101 patients; 64 men [63.4%]; median [range] age 59 [28-94] years). The percentage requiring supplementary oxygen was 99.0% (98 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 98.0% (99 patients) in the placebo group. The percentage who progressed to IMV, ECMO, or death was 17.2% (17 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 22.8% (23 patients) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.28-1.35; P = .23). Among patients with elevated interleukin 6, the rate was 17.5% (11 of 63 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 30.4% (21 of 96 patients) in the placebo group. The adverse event rate was similar for pacritinib vs placebo (78.1% [75 patients] vs 80.2% [81 patients]), with no excess in infection (14.6% [14 patients] vs 19.8% [20 patients]), bleeding (8.3% [8 patients] vs 10.9% [11 patients]), or thrombosis (8.3% [8 patients] vs 7.9% [8 patients]). Rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with pacritinib than placebo (29.2% [28 patients] vs 40.6% [41 patients]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The study did not meet its primary end point in patients with severe COVID-19. Subgroup analyses may indicate specific populations with hyperinflammation that could benefit from pacritinib, although further clinical trials would be needed to confirm these effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04404361.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality in people with dementia without COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Significant mortality amongst vulnerable populations, such as people living with dementia, might go undetected during pandemic conditions due to refocus of care efforts. There is an urgent need to fully evaluate the pandemic impact on mortality amongst people living with dementia in order to facilitate future healthcare reforms and prevent deaths. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was any significant difference in mortality amongst people with dementia without COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in 5 databases. The relative risk ratio and confidence interval was used to estimate the change in mortality rates amongst people with dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic. The I2 value was used to assess heterogeneity, publication bias, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis of 11 studies showed that mortality amongst people living with dementia was significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic for people with dementia without COVID-19. Mortality risk increased by 25% during the time period studied. Subgroup analysis was not performed due the low number of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that people with dementia had a significant increased mortality during the pandemic even if they did not have COVID-19. People with dementia should participate in efforts that reduce general social spread and pandemic impact on healthcare system such as vaccinations, mask mandates, and testing. These results have clinical implications as preventing direct COVID-19 infection is not enough to adequately protect people living with dementia from increased mortality. Measures to limit social spread of infections and help support patients should also be a focus for clinicians. Further research should focus on the identification of mechanisms and other explanations for increased mortality as well as contributing factors such as living in care homes and differences between countries with various pandemic strategies.

Years of life lost associated with COVID-19 deaths in the USA during the first 2 years of the pandemic

Background

Prior estimates of the years of life lost (YLLs) in the USA associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were 1.2 million through 11 July 2020 and 3.9 million through 31 January 2021 (which roughly coincides with the first full year of the pandemic). The aim of this study is to update YLL estimates through the first 2 years of the pandemic.

Methods

We employed data regarding COVID-19 deaths through 5 February 2022 by jurisdiction, gender and age group. We used actuarial life expectancy tables by gender and age to estimate YLLs.

Results

We estimated roughly 9.7 million YLLs due to COVID-19 deaths. The number of YLLs per 10 000 capita was 297.5, with the highest rate in Mississippi (482.7) and the lowest in Vermont (61.4). There was substantial interstate variation in the timing of YLLs and differences in YLLs by gender. YLLs per death increased from 9.2 in the first year of the pandemic to 10.8 through the first 2 years.

Conclusions

Our findings improve our understanding of how the mortality effects of COVID-19 have evolved. This insight can be valuable to public health officials as the disease moves to an endemic phase.