Search

Public health research has assessed the negative human health outcomes from continued exposure to air pollutants, in particular, fine particulate matter (PM2.5 , PM10), nitrogen oxide (NO2), and ozone (O3). Recent studies have honed in on expectant mothers and their developing fetuses as a large, at-risk population for these exposures. Ambient air pollutant exposure is linked with negative physical, mental, and behavioral health outcomes in both child and mother. Expectant mothers subjected to contaminants (PM2.5 , PM10 , NO2 , O3) over an extended period of time have an increased risk of their child being born prematurely with low birth weight and size, neurological delays, impaired motor and cognitive function, and development of lung related diseases such as cancer and asthma. In their early stages of life, children whose mothers were exposed to air pollutants during pregnancy also had detrimental mental and behavioral health outcomes. These negative health effects were not just limited to their children; expectant mothers also took this burden upon themselves. Pregnant mothers had elevated levels of blood cortisol and chronic stress, which ultimately impacts their child’s development in the womb due to oxidative stress and inflammation of crucial organs including the placenta. Researchers have found that mothers with pre-existing health conditions such as diabetes and asthma faced an even greater risk of air pollutant-related health complications. Expectant mothers also faced harmful mental health outcomes during their pregnancy and postpartum period. Additionally, researchers conducted geographical comparisons of residential areas with less air pollutant estimates versus regions with higher levels. Their findings showed that high ambient air pollutant levels were concentrated in predominantly low-income and minority communities and subsequently how these populations are the most vulnerable to its negative health outcomes. Public health research regarding maternal and child health has advanced rapidly in recent years, bringing to light about the issues of socioeconomic disparities and environmental racism surrounding air pollution exposure.

BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified.MethodsWe conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing.Results751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact.ConclusionsNPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons.

BackgroundEstimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions, and understanding of barriers to uptake, are necessary to inform vaccine rollout.MethodsWe enrolled cases (testing positive) and controls (testing negative) from among the population whose SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test results from 24 February to 29 April 2021 were reported to the California Department of Public Health. Participants were matched on age, sex, and geographic region. We assessed participants' self-reported history of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine receipt (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Participants were considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after second dose receipt. Among unvaccinated participants, we assessed willingness to receive vaccination. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) via the matched odds ratio of prior vaccination, comparing cases with controls.ResultsWe enrolled 1023 eligible participants aged ≥18 years. Among 525 cases, 71 (13.5%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 20 (3.8%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Among 498 controls, 185 (37.1%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 86 (16.3%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Two weeks after second dose receipt, VE was 87.0% (95% confidence interval: 68.6-94.6%) and 86.2% (68.4-93.9%) for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Fully vaccinated participants receiving either product experienced 91.3% (79.3-96.3%) and 68.3% (27.9-85.7%) VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, respectively. Among unvaccinated participants, 42.4% (159/375) residing in rural regions and 23.8% (67/281) residing in urban regions reported hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsAuthorized mRNA-based vaccines are effective at reducing documented SARS-CoV-2 infections within the general population of California. Vaccine hesitancy presents a barrier to reaching coverage levels needed for herd immunity.

SARS-CoV-2, more commonly known as COVID-19, is a novel coronavirus that has spread on a global scale since its emergence in late 2019. The ongoing pandemic fueled researchers to study new COVID-19 detection methods that are more efficient and accurate alongside new mutations that are coming to light. COVID-19 testing has been heavily dominated by the utilization of polymerase chain reactions (PCR). However, PCR testing often takes an extended period of time before individuals receive their results and requires the precision of skilled personnel to handle scientific equipment and conduct readings. PCR testing requires a large number of resources to conduct, making it difficult for individuals within the general community to conveniently and quickly get tested in the case of close exposure. Thus, researchers around the world have been looking for alternative methods of COVID-19 detection that not only are fast and convenient for test-takers but also maintain the same degree of accuracy. Researchers studying genome editing and subsequent CRISPR-Cas systems have found applications to aid in COVID-19 detection. The CRISPR-Cas system coupled with pre-existing Reverse Transcriptase Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) methods was discovered to be a viable means of detecting COVID-19 in humans. The combined RT-LAMP and CRISPR-Cas system form of COVID-19 testing proves useful in practice because it requires less machinery, fewer trained individuals to monitor the reactions, and is an overall simpler procedure to perform in larger numbers; subsequently making this new form of COVID-19 detection more viable on a worldwide level. This discussion intends to explore the different experiments on utilizing this new and effective COVID-19 detection method. The drawbacks and limitations of the experiment will also be outlined, as well as implementing this detection method in hopes to revolutionize the future of worldwide disease detection.

The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4). A test-negative design case-control study enrolled randomly selected California residents who had received a test result for SARS-CoV-2 during February 18-December 1, 2021. Face mask or respirator use was assessed among 652 case-participants (residents who had received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2) and 1,176 matched control-participants (residents who had received negative test results for SARS-CoV-2) who self-reported being in indoor public settings during the 2 weeks preceding testing and who reported no known contact with anyone with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time. Always using a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with never wearing a face mask or respirator in these settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.24-0.82). Among 534 participants who specified the type of face covering they typically used, wearing N95/KN95 respirators (aOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.64) or surgical masks (aOR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.90) was associated with significantly lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with not wearing any face mask or respirator. These findings reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using a respirator offers the highest level of personal protection against acquiring infection, although it is most important to wear a mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently.

ObjectiveIn 2013, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) participated in the Choosing Wisely campaign and devised a recommendation to avoid testing antinuclear antibody (ANA) subserologies without a positive ANA and clinical suspicion of disease. The goals of our study were to describe ANA and subserology ordering practices and predictors of ordering concurrent ANA and subserologies in a safety-net hospital.MethodsWe identified ANA and subserologies (dsDNA, Sm, RNP, SSA, SSB, Scl-70 and centromere) completed at Denver Health between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2011. Variables included demographics, primary insurance, service, and setting from which the test was ordered. We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of concurrent ordering of ANA and subserologies.ResultsDuring seven years, 3221 ANA were performed in 2771 individuals and 211 (6.6%) were performed concurrently with at least one subserology. The most common concurrent subserologies were dsDNA (21.8%), SSA (20.8%), and SSB (19.7%). In the multivariable logistic analysis, significant predictors of concurrent ANA and subserologies were the labs being ordered from subspecialty care (OR 8.12, 95% CI 5.27-12.50, p-value