Search

Study objectiveMost long coronavirus disease (long COVID) studies rely on traditional surveillance methods that miss underserved populations who use emergency departments (EDs) as their primary health care source. In medically underserved ED populations, we sought to determine (1) whether there are gaps in awareness and self-declared understanding about long COVID illness, and (2) the prevalence, impact on school/work attendance, and receipt of care for long COVID symptoms.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional, convenience sample survey study of adult patients at 11 geographically representative US EDs from December 2022 to October 2023. Awareness and self-declared understanding about long COVID illness were measured. Prevalence, impact on school/work attendance, and receipt of care for long COVID symptoms were also assessed.ResultsOf 1,618 eligible patients, 1455 (89.9%) agreed to participate, including 33.4% African Americans and 30.9% Latino/a. Of the patients, 17.1% lacked primary care. In total, 33.2% had persistent COVID-19 symptoms lasting >1 month, and 20.3% had symptoms >3 months. Moreover, 49.8% with long COVID symptoms missed work/school because of symptoms; 30.3% of all participants and 33.5% of participants who had long COVID symptoms had prior awareness and self-declared understanding of long COVID. Characteristics associated with poor understanding of long COVID were African American race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66 to 5.09) and Latino/a ethnicity (aOR 3.16, 95% CI 2.15 to 4.64). Participants lacking primary care were less likely to have received long COVID care (24.6% versus 51.2%; difference 26.6%; 95% CI 13.7% to 36.9%).ConclusionsDespite high prevalence and impact on school/work attendance of long COVID symptoms, most of this ED population had limited awareness and self-declared understanding of long COVID, and many had not received care. EDs should consider the development of protocols for diagnosis, education, and treatment of long COVID illness.

BackgroundWhile prior work examining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern focused on hospitalization and death, less is known about differences in clinical presentation. We compared the prevalence of acute symptoms across pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a cohort study enrolling symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. We determined the association between the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron time periods and the prevalence of 21 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute symptoms.ResultsWe enrolled 4113 participants from December 2020 to June 2022. Pre-Delta vs Delta vs Omicron participants had increasing sore throat (40.9%, 54.6%, 70.6%; P < .001), cough (50.9%, 63.3%, 66.7%; P < .001), and runny noses (48.9%, 71.3%, 72.9%; P < .001). We observed reductions during Omicron in chest pain (31.1%, 24.2%, 20.9%; P < .001), shortness of breath (42.7%, 29.5%, 27.5%; P < .001), loss of taste (47.1%, 61.8%, 19.2%; P < .001), and loss of smell (47.5%, 55.6%, 20.0%; P < .001). After adjustment, those infected during Omicron had significantly higher odds of sore throat vs pre-Delta (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% CI, 2.26-3.35) and Delta (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.69-2.28).ConclusionsParticipants infected during Omicron were more likely to report symptoms of common respiratory viruses, such as sore throat, and less likely to report loss of smell and taste.Trial registrationNCT04610515.

BackgroundThe prevalence, incidence, and interrelationships of persistent symptoms after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection vary. There are limited data on specific phenotypes of persistent symptoms. Using latent class analysis (LCA) modeling, we sought to identify whether specific phenotypes of COVID-19 were present 3 months and 6 months post-infection.MethodsThis was a multicenter study of symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 with prospectively collected data on general symptoms and fatigue-related symptoms up to 6 months postdiagnosis. Using LCA, we identified symptomatically homogenous groups among COVID-positive and COVID-negative participants at each time period for both general and fatigue-related symptoms.ResultsAmong 5963 baseline participants (4504 COVID-positive and 1459 COVID-negative), 4056 had 3-month and 2856 had 6-month data at the time of analysis. We identified 4 distinct phenotypes of post-COVID conditions (PCCs) at 3 and 6 months for both general and fatigue-related symptoms; minimal-symptom groups represented 70% of participants at 3 and 6 months. When compared with the COVID-negative cohort, COVID-positive participants had higher occurrence of loss of taste/smell and cognition problems. There was substantial class-switching over time; those in 1 symptom class at 3 months were equally likely to remain or enter a new phenotype at 6 months.ConclusionsWe identified distinct classes of PCC phenotypes for general and fatigue-related symptoms. Most participants had minimal or no symptoms at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Significant proportions of participants changed symptom groups over time, suggesting that symptoms present during the acute illness may differ from prolonged symptoms and that PCCs may have a more dynamic nature than previously recognized. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

INTRODUCTION: Data on ethnic and racial differences in symptoms and health-related impacts following SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. We aimed to estimate the ethnic and racial differences in symptoms and health-related impacts 3 and 6 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Participants included adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection enrolled in a prospective multicenter US study between 12/11/2020 and 7/4/2022 as the primary cohort of interest, as well as a SARS-CoV-2-negative cohort to account for non-SARS-CoV-2-infection impacts, who completed enrollment and 3-month surveys (N = 3,161; 2,402 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 759 SARS-CoV-2-negative). Marginal odds ratios were estimated using GEE logistic regression for individual symptoms, health status, activity level, and missed work 3 and 6 months after COVID-19 illness, comparing each ethnicity or race to the referent group (non-Hispanic or white), adjusting for demographic factors, social determinants of health, substance use, pre-existing health conditions, SARS-CoV-2 infection status, COVID-19 vaccination status, and survey time point, with interactions between ethnicity or race and time point, ethnicity or race and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status and time point. RESULTS: Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the majority of symptoms were similar over time between ethnic and racial groups. At 3 months, Hispanic participants were more likely than non-Hispanic participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.94; 95%CI: 1.36-2.78) and reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.47; 95%CI: 1.06-2.02; much less, OR: 2.23; 95%CI: 1.38-3.61). At 6 months, differences by ethnicity were not present. At 3 months, Other/Multiple race participants were more likely than white participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.25-2.88), reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.72; 95%CI: 1.21-2.46; much less, OR: 2.08; 95%CI: 1.18-3.65). At 6 months, Asian participants were more likely than white participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.88; 95%CI: 1.13-3.12); Black participants reported more missed work (OR, 2.83; 95%CI: 1.60-5.00); and Other/Multiple race participants reported more fair/poor health (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.10-3.05), reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.60; 95%CI: 1.02-2.51; much less, OR: 2.49; 95%CI: 1.40-4.44), and more missed work (OR: 2.25; 95%CI: 1.27-3.98). DISCUSSION: Awareness of ethnic and racial differences in outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection may inform clinical and public health efforts to advance health equity in long-term outcomes.

BackgroundWe conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial, we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.MethodsThis is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 1-week periods to the intervention and 30 1-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: (1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; (2) incarceration; (3) psychiatric chief complaint; and (4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks, participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-min video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by an ED physician or nurse); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately, an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients.DiscussionHighlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs.ConclusionsToward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.Trial statusWe began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05142332 . Registered 02 December 2021.

The authors argue that postacute SARS-CoV-2 syndrome presents unique challenges in determining risk factors, natural history, and proper management. They call for strategies and actions that are based on rigorous, high-quality evidence.

BackgroundReports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsINSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses.ResultsParticipating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing.ConclusionsThis study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Study objectiveEmergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt.ResultsOf 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED.ConclusionED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

BackgroundAntiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock.ResultsIn the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo.ConclusionsOverall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).

Introduction: Emerging infectious diseases often create concern and fear among the public. Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) and Enterovirus (EV-68) are uncommon viral illnesses compared to influenza. The objective of this study is to determine risk for these viral diseases and then determine how public perception of influenza severity and risk of infection relate to more publicized but less common emerging infectious diseases such as EVD and EV-68 among a sample of adults seeking care an American emergency department.Methods: Included were consenting adults who sought care in two different urban emergency departments in Seattle, WA in November, 2014. Excluded were those who were not fluent in English, in police custody, had decreased level of consciousness, a psychiatric emergency, or required active resuscitation. Patients were approached to participate in an anonymous survey performed on a tablet computer. Information sought included demographics, medical comorbidities, risk factors for EVD and EV-68, and perceptions of disease likelihood, severity and worry for developing EVD, EV-68 or influenza along with subjective estimates of the number of people who have died of each virus over the year in the US.Results: A total of 262 (88.5% participation rate) patients participated in the survey. Overall, participants identified that they were more likely to get influenza compared to EVD (p

Background and aimThe large regional variation in survival after treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is incompletely explained. Communities respond to OHCA with differing number of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel who respond to the scene. The effect of different numbers of EMS personnel on-scene upon outcomes is unclear. We sought to evaluate the association between number of EMS personnel on-scene and survival after OHCA.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 16,122 EMS-treated OHCA events from December 1, 2005 to May 31, 2007 from a combined population over 21 million people residing in an area of over 33,000 square miles in Canada and the United States. Number of EMS personnel on-scene was defined as the number of EMS personnel who responded to the scene of OHCA within 15 min after 9-1-1 call receipt and prior to patient death or transport away from the scene. Associations with survival to hospital discharge were assessed by using generalized estimating equations to construct multivariable logistic regression models.ResultsCompared to a reference number of EMS personnel on-scene of 5 or 6, 7 or 8 EMS personnel on-scene was associated with a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.35 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.73). There was no significant difference in survival between 5 or 6 personnel on-scene versus fewer.ConclusionMore EMS personnel on-scene within 15 min of 9-1-1 call was associated with improved survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It is unlikely that this finding was mediated solely by earlier CPR or earlier defibrillation.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a critical resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best available national data on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, use of medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document. Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2012 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈3500 times (data from Google Scholar). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. For this year's edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year's edition includes a new chapter on peripheral artery disease, as well as new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA's 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year's Update. © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a critical resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best available national data on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, use of medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document. Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2012 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈3500 times (data from Google Scholar). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. For this year's edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year's edition includes a new chapter on peripheral artery disease, as well as new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA's 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year's Update. © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update*The Statistical Update is a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best national data available on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document*Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions*In 2011 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈1500 times (data from ISI Web of Science)*In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled*For this year's edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year*This year's edition also implements a new chapter organization to reflect the spectrum of cardiovascular health behaviors and health factors and risks, as well as subsequent complicating conditions, disease states, and outcomes*Also, the 2013 Statistical Update contains new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA's 2020 Impact Goals*Below are a few highlights from this year's Update . © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update.*The Statistical Update is a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best national data available on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2011 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ∼1500 times (data from ISI Web of Science). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. For this year's edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year's edition also implements a new chapter organization to reflect the spectrum of cardiovascular health behaviors and health factors and risks, as well as subsequent complicating conditions, disease states, and outcomes. Also, the 2013 Statistical Update contains new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA's 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year's Update. © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.