Search

We tend to take our voices for granted. Those of us who sing know that the voice is one of the most powerful instruments, and it is all housed completely within the human body. As singers we express musical gestures and text through our voices. But we also reveal a unique profile of sounds, feelings, and emotions unlike any other person. Our voices are our identities.Those who have struggled with vocal injury, even temporarily, know the pain of that loss. Thankfully, there are a wealth of vocal experts, doctors, and speech voice pathologists to help singers through physical challenges. But there is a class of vocal loss that isn’t at the structural level. The voices themselves are fine: no damage to the folds, no overt trauma to the mechanism. Instead, the challenges result from errors in the complex signaling of the brain to the vocal instrument. In these cases, a doctor cannot just look through a scope to diagnose the issue. The pathways are unseen, and for that reason, the approach must be customized through trial and error. It is only through specialized motor practice and experience that real change can occur. This paper explores three very personal stories of voices that were lost, and then found, through retraining and neuroplasticity.

Phonation is a wonder of physics and physiology. In reductionist terms, the mechanics of the glottis can be viewed as a valve system: the streaming airflow from the lungs is passed through a dynamic and complex structure which is constantly changing aperture and configuration. The resulting pressure waves from air passing through the glottis are ultimately shaped and refined by the vocal tract giving rise to our unique voices. The nuance of this is extraordinary: as we sing and speak the vocal fold configuration is constantly changing in length and degree of contact under pressure conditions which are not always predictable. Yet the folds remain remarkably diligent in their ability to maintain equilibrium throughout these rapid changes. Without such discipline of this mechanism, we wouldn’t be capable of getting stability in any sound. Large, distal muscles of respiration are not designed to regulate such nuance at the millisecond level. So it is left to the larynx and vocal folds to balance the source sound of the system.This installment of “Minding the Gap” will be about how the brain controls this valve element at the center of our instrument: the intricate behaviors of the glottis. Neuroscience has shown that voicing, pitch, and phrasing are all signaled independently through the two laryngeal motor cortices which are a hallmark of our vocal learning abilities. Understanding these elements can help singers and teachers design targeted pedagogical strategies.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63–75%) overall, including 55% (29–72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64–77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14–90 days (73% [59–82%]), 91–180 days (71% [60–80%]), and 181–274 days (70% [54–81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18–65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Singing is the most complex human motor behavior involving the seemingly instantaneous coordination of over 100 diverse muscles. The perceived spontaneous sound production requires precise control in a tight timing window at the level of milliseconds. The synchronous recruitment is a wonder of motor prediction, with calculations, signals, and even some muscle activity occurring prior to any onset of sound. Recent research in neuroscience, using bold in vivo approaches to dissect how the tongue, lips, and jaw are coordinated in the brain, reveal a dynamic relationship between timing, location, and order. Singers and teachers can integrate ideas from this research to generate more targeted pedagogy.

PDF file - 148K

PDF file - 75K

Unabridged List of Genes Differentially Expressed Between AD and AI Prostate Cancer

Purpose: After an initial response to androgen ablation, most prostate tumors recur, ultimately progressing to highly aggressive androgen-independent cancer. The molecular mechanisms underlying progression are not well known in part due to the rarity of androgen-independent samples from primary and metastatic sites.Experimental Design: We compared the gene expression profiles of 10 androgen-independent primary prostate tumor biopsies with 10 primary, untreated androgen-dependent tumors. Samples were laser capture microdissected, the RNA was amplified, and gene expression was assessed using Affymetrix Human Genome U133A GeneChip. Differential expression was examined with principal component analysis, hierarchical clustering, and Student's t testing. Analysis of gene ontology was done with Expression Analysis Systematic Explorer and gene expression data were integrated with genomic alterations with Differential Gene Locus Mapping.Results: Unsupervised principal component analysis showed that the androgen-dependent and androgen-independent tumors segregated from one another. After filtering the data, 239 differentially expressed genes were identified. Two main gene ontologies were found discordant between androgen-independent and androgen-dependent tumors: macromolecule biosynthesis was down-regulated and cell adhesion was up-regulated in androgen-independent tumors. Other differentially expressed genes were related to interleukin-6 signaling as well as angiogenesis, cell adhesion, apoptosis, oxidative stress, and hormone response. The Differential Gene Locus Mapping analysis identified nine regions of potential chromosomal deletion in the androgen-independent tumors, including 1p36, 3p21, 6p21, 8p21, 11p15, 11q12, 12q23, 16q12, and 16q21.Conclusions: Taken together, these data identify several unique characteristics of androgen-independent prostate cancer that may hold potential for the development of targeted therapeutic intervention.

PDF file - 315K, Sweave Report

In children and younger adults up to 39 years of age, SARS-CoV-2 usually elicits mild symptoms that resemble the common cold. Disease severity increases with age starting at 30 and reaches astounding mortality rates that are ~330 fold higher in persons above 85 years of age compared to those 18-39 years old.To understand age-specific immune pathobiology of COVID-19 we have analyzed soluble mediators, cellular phenotypes, and transcriptome from over 80 COVID-19 patients of varying ages and disease severity, carefully controlling for age as a variable. We found that reticulocyte numbers and peripheral blood transcriptional signatures robustly correlated with disease severity. By contrast, decreased numbers and proportion of naïve T-cells, reported previously as a COVID-19 severity risk factor, were found to be general features of aging and not of COVID-19 severity, as they readily occurred in older participants experiencing only mild or no disease at all. Single-cell transcriptional signatures across age and severity groups showed that severe but not moderate/mild COVID-19 causes cell stress response in different T-cell populations, and some of that stress was unique to old severe participants, suggesting that in severe disease of older adults, these defenders of the organism may be disabled from performing immune protection. These findings shed new light on interactions between age and disease severity in COVID-19.

Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP) offers publicly funded vouchers to moderate- and low-income students in low-performing public schools to enroll in participating private schools. Established...

Background Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against a spectrum of severe disease, including critical illness and death, remains poorly characterized. Methods We conducted a test-negative study in an intensive care unit (ICU) network at 10 US hospitals to evaluate VE for preventing influenza-associated severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) during the 2019–2020 season, which was characterized by circulation of drifted A/H1N1 and B-lineage viruses. Cases were adults hospitalized in the ICU and a targeted number outside the ICU (to capture a spectrum of severity) with laboratory-confirmed, influenza-associated SARI. Test-negative controls were frequency-matched based on hospital, timing of admission, and care location (ICU vs non-ICU). Estimates were adjusted for age, comorbidities, and other confounders. Results Among 638 patients, the median (interquartile) age was 57 (44–68) years; 286 (44.8%) patients were treated in the ICU and 42 (6.6%) died during hospitalization. Forty-five percent of cases and 61% of controls were vaccinated, which resulted in an overall VE of 32% (95% CI: 2–53%), including 28% (−9% to 52%) against influenza A and 52% (13–74%) against influenza B. VE was higher in adults 18–49 years old (62%; 95% CI: 27–81%) than those aged 50–64 years (20%; −48% to 57%) and ≥65 years old (−3%; 95% CI: −97% to 46%) (P = .0789 for interaction). VE was significantly higher against influenza-associated death (80%; 95% CI: 4–96%) than nonfatal influenza illness. Conclusions During a season with drifted viruses, vaccination reduced severe influenza-associated illness among adults by 32%. VE was high among young adults.

Background Patient selection and cannulation arguably represent the key steps for the successful implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Cannulation is traditionally performed in the operating room or the catheterization laboratory for a number of reasons, including physician preference and access to real‐time imaging, with the goal of minimizing complications and ensuring appropriate cannula positioning. Nonetheless, the patients' critical and unstable conditions often require emergent initiation of ECMO and preclude the safe transport of the patient to a procedural suite. Aims Therefore, with the objective of avoiding delay with the initiation of therapy and reducing the hazard of transport, we implemented a protocol for bedside ECMO cannulation. Matherial and Methods A total of 89 patients required ECMO support at Hennepin County Medical Center between March 2015 and December 2019. Twenty‐eight (31%) required veno‐venous support and were all cannulated at the bedside. Overall survival was 71% with no morbidity or mortality related to the cannulation procedure. Conclusion In the current pandemic, the strategy of veno‐venous bedside cannulation may have additional benefits for the care of patients with refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome due to coronavirus disease‐2019, decreasing the risk of exposure of health care worker or other patients to the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 occurring during patient transport, preparation, or during disinfection of the procedural suite and the transportation pathway after ECMO cannulation.

We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress.This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression.Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income.In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.Case control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states March 11 - December 15, 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and RT-PCR-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with two doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (180 vs ≥180 days since dose two) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines.10,078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (IQR 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE180 days was 90% (95%CI: 88-91) vs 82% (95%CI: 79-85) at ≥180 days (p 0.001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, p 0.001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, p 0.001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) [91% to 87%, p = 0.005], and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, p 0.001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed.In a period largely pre-dating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of two mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.

IMPORTANCE: A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)—and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. EXPOSURES: COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P

Throughout history, environmental epidemiology has proven crucial to identify certain threats to human health and to provide a basis for the development of life-saving public health policies. However, epidemiologists are facing challenges when studying tenuous threats such as environmental exposure to chemicals, whose association with adverse health effects may be difficult to characterize. As a result, epidemiological data can seldom be fully leveraged for quantitative risk assessment and decision-making. Despite two decades of efforts to improve a more systematic integration of human data to evaluate human health risks, assessors still heavily rely on animal data to do so, while epidemiology plays more of a secondary role. Although the need for more and better collaboration between risk assessors and epidemiologists is widely recognized, both fields tend to remain siloed. In 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute initiated a project engaging the epidemiology, exposure science, and regulatory communities with tripartite representation from regulators, industry, and academia in a dialogue on the use of environmental epidemiology for regulatory decision-making. Several focus groups attended by epidemiology, exposure science, and risk assessment experts were organized to explore incentives and barriers to collaboration, to ultimately bridge the gap between the various disciplines, and to realize the full potential of epidemiological data in risk assessment. Various ideas that have emerged from these meetings could help ensure the better integration of epidemiological data in quantitative risk assessment and contribute to building confidence in a robust and science-based regulatory decision-making process.

BackgroundAs SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.MethodsIn a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.ResultsAmong 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%).ConclusionDuring March–May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Background Because of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16–64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19. Methods Observational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March–June and October–December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data. Results Among 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n = 434); 90% October–December (n = 213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March–June and October–December. Conclusions Most adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the continued urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes.

Sigal R. Ben-Porath and Michael C. Johanek provide a brief, readable, and illustrative account of the history of schooling in the United States and discuss how history can inform today’s school cho...

We estimate the relationship between exclusionary discipline given in eighth-grade and the probability of ninth-grade retention. We use a rich 7-year, student-level, panel data set from Arkansas. We use a novel approach by limiting our sample to students who switch schools between eighth and ninth grades. This movement gives each student a fresh start and removes the potential confound of a student’s reputation as a “problem student” that could influence teachers to be harsher on students who already have a disciplinary record. Further, we control for student infractions in eighth-grade, to focus on the relationship between the exclusionary consequence (rather than the precipitating behavior) and future academic success. We find that students who receive exclusionary discipline in eighth grade are more likely to be retained in ninth-grade compared with similar students whose infractions did not result in exclusionary discipline. Moreover, we find that the likelihood of ninth-grade retention increases with the number of days of exclusionary discipline. We, however, did not find any statistically significant subgroup differences.

Background As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. Methods In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11–May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Results Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7–91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18–49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3–9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8–82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6–94.8). Conclusion During March–May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Introduction Understanding patient factors associated with not being vaccinated is essential for successful implementation of influenza vaccination programs. Methods We enrolled adults hospitalized with severe acute respiratory illness at 10 United States (US) hospitals during the 2019–2020 influenza season. We interviewed patients to collect data about influenza vaccination, sociodemographic characteristics, and vaccine perceptions. Results Among 679 participants, 264 (38.9%) reported not receiving influenza vaccination. Among those not vaccinated, 135 (51.1%) reported choosing not to receive a vaccine because of perceived ineffectiveness (36.7%) or risk (14.4%) of influenza vaccination. Sociodemographic factors associated with not being vaccinated included no medical insurance (aOR = 6.42; 95% CI: 2.52–16.38) and being non-White or Hispanic (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.02–2.32). Conclusions Optimizing uptake of influenza vaccination in the US may be improved by educational programs regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness and enhancing vaccine access, particularly among non-White and Hispanic Americans and those without medical insurance.

Background Symptoms of mild COVID‐19 illness are non‐specific and may persist for prolonged periods. Effects on quality of life of persistent poor physical or mental health associated with COVID‐19 are not well understood. Methods Adults aged ≥18 years with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 and matched control patients who tested negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at outpatient facilities associated with 11 medical centers in the United States were interviewed to assess symptoms, illness duration, and health‐related quality of life. Duration of symptoms, health‐related quality of life measures, and days of poor physical health by symptoms experienced during illness were compared between case patients and controls using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Symptoms associated with COVID‐19 case status were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 320 participants included, 157 were COVID‐19 cases and 163 were SARS‐CoV‐2 negative controls. Loss of taste or smell was reported by 63% of cases and 6% of controls and was strongly associated with COVID‐19 in logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 32.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6‐83.1). COVID‐19 cases were more likely than controls to have experienced fever, body aches, weakness, or fatigue during illness, and to report ≥1 persistent symptom more than 14 days after symptom onset (50% vs 32%, P

A Matrix has recently been presented as a tool to assist in the translation of epidemiology literature for the needs of risk assessment. The Matrix is an approach to bridge the epidemiology-risk assessment gap and includes nine risk assessor “asks” of epidemiology studies. The Matrix is designed to facilitate awareness about how choices regarding a study's design, analyses and reporting can enhance the use of epidemiology data for risk assessment, and ultimately public health decision-making. In this paper, a case study of the Matrix is presented to (i) demonstrate how a selected body of epidemiology literature can be described in a risk assessment context using the elements of the Matrix, and (ii) assess the clarity and utility of the Matrix. This was conducted by reviewing 14 epidemiologic studies used in the US National Ambient Air Quality Standards Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen for evaluating the nine elements outlined in the Matrix. The Matrix performed well in characterizing the needs of risk assessors in the areas of hazard identification, exposure assessment, and dose-response assessment. The case study revealed areas in which more precise word choices within the Matrix may improve the characterization of translational needs in epidemiology literature; recommendations for modifications to the Matrix are made. The case study findings indicate that there are opportunities for risk assessors and epidemiologists to collaborate to facilitate the use of epidemiology research for public health decision-making.

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Background Human performance theory strives to better understand the interactions between individuals and critical systems, and the individual's ability to recognize error-likely situations and to act in real time to mitigate threats likely to lead to error, causing accidents with resulting harm to the individual, workforce and/or environment. Psychological well-being is a critical factor for successful application of human performance principles. Psychological well-being is defined as low levels of fatigue, stress and distractibility and high levels of resilience that can be a positive influence on interactions, critical thinking and decision making within work groups and critical systems. Objectives/Scope Addressing engineering or mechanical controls alone without addressing the human behavior at the center of operations in the energy industry limits process safety efforts to decrease serious incidents and fatalities. To that end efforts to develop resiliency within the workforce highlight connections to safe operations. Our resilience framework addresses several interpersonal and intrapersonal factors that can enhance mental and emotional well-being. These psychological processes relate to documented impacts on safety, including situational awareness and decision making. In this paper we examine, through case studies, cognitive bias and how the practice of mindfulness (paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally), can positively impact human behavior and function as safeguards for decreasing human error. Method The goal of these studies is to elucidate how bias and distracted thinking (lack of mindfulness) are addressed in the decision-making process in the energy industry.to enhance mental well-being and human performance. Examples of tools that support decision making in situations where bias and stress may be a factor will be described. We will also describe steps that business unit leaders utilize to create a culture where human performance theory and individual psychological well-being converge, optimizing safe operations in the energy industry. Results and Observations Well-being data provide aggregate information from across the enterprise. Aggregate data from employee surveys and information from wellness programs and incident reports indicate that individual factors remain as opportunities for targeted focus on mental and emotional well-being in some groups. To that end, some downstream and upstream business units have identified cognitive bias, reactiveness and lack of mindfulness as focus areas for increasing awareness and development. Conclusions This paper aims to raise awareness about the importance of psychological functioning which can impact well-being and cognition. Cognitive impairment is certainly a detriment and hazard to safe operations. Compromised cognitive agility leads to inferior problem-solving ability and diminished decision-making capability, especially under duress. Humans do not have the ability to always self-monitor or regulate thoughts and actions like machines and are therefore susceptible to human error. Henceforth efforts to make thinking explicit is desirable, as well as efforts to expose deficits in cognitive processes. Decline in cognitive capacity may first be gleaned from changes in behavior including but not limited to absenteeism, presenteeism, and changes in mood, for example, depression, sadness and irritability. Because it is human nature to make mistakes, addressing these factors proactively can make workers and supervisors more aware of when they are most vulnerable to making mistakes, and highlight areas where adequate safeguards are needed. Applications Tools for supporting the workforce in addressing individual factor error traps are highlighted, including methods for improving focus and attention, heightening awareness of fatigue and personal biases, and taking appropriate action to mitigate the situation and stress in operational settings. Innovations or Technical Contributions This paper highlights the role of psychological well-being in influencing workforce health and safety and provides insights into proactive measures that can decrease distractibility, by increasing focus on the present, and influence human performance.

ObjectivesTo characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant.DesignCase-control study.Setting21 hospitals across the United States.Participants11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022).Main outcome measuresVaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization’s clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression.ResultsEffectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85).ConclusionsmRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

We systematically examine the existing evidence and compute meta-analytic averages for the effects of scaled-up, publicly funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programmes in the United States on student ...

I review the literature on how parents select schools when participating in private choice programs in the United States. I address two sub-questions. First, do parents have the incentives and moti...

In recent decades, institutions, teachers, and students report a decline in field trip attendance. The impact of this decline on educational and societal outcomes such as social-emotional skill acquisition is unknown. Social-emotional learning (SEL) are skills thought to be important to life and relationship success and are associated with better long-term student outcomes. This study describes the results of the first-ever longitudinal experiment of the effects of multiple arts- related field trips on elementary school students of color in a large urban school district. Treated students attended field trips to an art museum, a live theater production, and a symphony performance. We find significant educational benefits from attending multiple arts field trips on social-emotional outcomes, including increased feelings of tolerance and social perspective taking. Our findings also suggest that female treatment students exhibit increased conscientiousness as compared to their control group peers, however these effects dissipate when treatment ceases. Further, female students who receive three additional field trips in a second treatment year act more conscientious than in the prior year of treatment. Increased exposure to the arts through field trip experiences does not, however, appear to increase students’ desire to consume or participate in the arts, nor do we find an impact of treatment on empathy. These findings suggest that arts-related field trips elicit meaningful changes in students’ social- emotional attitudes and actions and that a decline in field trip attendance may be detrimental.

This paper presents second year results from the first ever multi-visit, longitudinal experiment on the benefits from arts-focused field trips. Students in fourth and fifth grades in ten elementary schools in a large urban school district were randomly assigned to receive three arts-related field trips throughout the school year, including an art museum, a live theater production, and a symphony performance or to serve as a control. We find that treatment students exhibit higher levels of school engagement as measured by students’ behavioral infractions and self-reported engagement. We also find that treatment students perform significantly better on their end of year standardized tests, up to 16% of a standard deviation increase. These effects are persistent even one year following treatment. However, the effects appear to be stronger for the first cohort of students in our sample.

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP) is a private school voucher program available to families who have incomes no greater than 250 percent of the federal poverty line and whose children attend a low performing public school. It began as a pilot program in New Orleans in 2008 and was expanded statewide in 2012. Previous evaluations of the LSP generally found negative impacts of the program on math and English language arts test scores. In this study, we evaluate the effects of the program on college enrollment for the first cohort of students eligible to enter college by 2017-18. Using lottery assignment for a student’s first choice private school, we are able to identify the causal effect of being awarded a scholarship on student attainment for just over 1,000 randomized students who were in the seventh through twelfth grades during the first year of the program. We find that 60% of treatment students who won a lottery and enrolled in their first choice private schools enter college, compared to 59.5% of control students. This difference in not statistically significant. We find no differential treatment effects when considering student enrollment in two- or four-year post-secondary institutions.

SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID19, has caused a pandemic that has infected a pandemic that has infected more than 80 M and killed more than 1.6 M persons worldwide. In the US as of December 2020, it has infected more than 32 M people while causing more than 570,000 deaths. As the pandemic persists, there has been a public demand to reopen schools and university campuses. To consider these demands, it is necessary to rapidly identify those individuals infected with the virus and isolate them so that disease transmission can be stopped. In the present study, we examined the sensitivity of the Quidel Rapid Antigen test for use in screening both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals at the University of Arizona from June to August 2020. A total of 885 symptomatic and 1551 asymptomatic subjects were assessed by antigen testing and real-time PCR testing. The sensitivity of the test for both symptomatic and asymptomatic persons was between 82 and 90%, with some caveats.

There is a large body of thorough research showing many positive benefits of school choice. However, many questions remain on how school choice works. Rigorous school choice experiments can only determine if access to school choice programs alters student outcomes; they cannot confidently identify the specific mechanisms that mediate various outcomes. Two commonly theorized mechanisms in school choice programs that lead to positive outcomes are (1) an increased access to higher-quality schools and (2) an improved match between schools and students. We examine the existing empirical evidence and the theoretical arguments for these two primary mechanisms. While there is evidence supporting both mechanisms, no studies are able to isolate the effect of quality schools independent of families selecting schools that match their preferences. Since the majority of this research is descriptive and has limited causal interpretation, theory is essential in guiding interpretation and policy implications. Theory suggests that people make choices based on what they believe to be the best match for their children, and those choices lead to incentives for individual schools to improve. We conclude with policy recommendations based on our summary of the literature.