Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Summary

Background

Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk.

Methods

We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509.

Findings

Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors.

Interpretation

In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed.

Funding

Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic?

Roy Anderson, Hans Heesterbeek, Don Klinkenberg … (2020)

Governments will not be able to minimise both deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the economic impact of viral spread. Keeping mortality as low as possible will be the highest priority for individuals; hence governments must put in place measures to ameliorate the inevitable economic downturn. In our view, COVID-19 has developed into a pandemic, with small chains of transmission in many countries and large chains resulting in extensive spread in a few countries, such as Italy, Iran, South Korea, and Japan. 1 Most countries are likely to have spread of COVID-19, at least in the early stages, before any mitigation measures have an impact. What has happened in China shows that quarantine, social distancing, and isolation of infected populations can contain the epidemic. 1 This impact of the COVID-19 response in China is encouraging for the many countries where COVID-19 is beginning to spread. However, it is unclear whether other countries can implement the stringent measures China eventually adopted. Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemics in 2002–03, provide hope and many lessons to other countries. In both places, COVID-19 has been managed well to date, despite early cases, by early government action and through social distancing measures taken by individuals. The course of an epidemic is defined by a series of key factors, some of which are poorly understood at present for COVID-19. The basic reproduction number (R0), which defines the mean number of secondary cases generated by one primary case when the population is largely susceptible to infection, determines the overall number of people who are likely to be infected, or more precisely the area under the epidemic curve. For an epidemic to take hold, the value of R0 must be greater than unity in value. A simple calculation gives the fraction likely to be infected without mitigation. This fraction is roughly 1–1/R0. With R0 values for COVID-19 in China around 2·5 in the early stages of the epidemic, 2 we calculate that approximately 60% of the population would become infected. This is a very worst-case scenario for a number of reasons. We are uncertain about transmission in children, some communities are remote and unlikely to be exposed, voluntary social distancing by individuals and communities will have an impact, and mitigation efforts, such as the measures put in place in China, greatly reduce transmission. As an epidemic progresses, the effective reproduction number (R) declines until it falls below unity in value when the epidemic peaks and then decays, either due to the exhaustion of people susceptible to infection or the impact of control measures. The speed of the initial spread of the epidemic, its doubling time, or the related serial interval (the mean time it takes for an infected person to pass on the infection to others), and the likely duration of the epidemic are determined by factors such as the length of time from infection to when a person is infectious to others and the mean duration of infectiousness. For the 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, in most infected people these epidemiological quantities were short with a day or so to infectiousness and a few days of peak infectiousness to others. 3 By contrast, for COVID-19, the serial interval is estimated at 4·4–7·5 days, which is more similar to SARS. 4 First among the important unknowns about COVID-19 is the case fatality rate (CFR), which requires information on the denominator that defines the number infected. We are unaware of any completed large-scale serology surveys to detect specific antibodies to COVID-19. Best estimates suggest a CFR for COVID-19 of about 0·3–1%, 4 which is higher than the order of 0·1% CFR for a moderate influenza A season. 5 The second unknown is the whether infectiousness starts before onset of symptoms. The incubation period for COVID-19 is about 5–6 days.4, 6 Combining this time with a similar length serial interval suggests there might be considerable presymptomatic infectiousness (appendix 1). For reference, influenza A has a presymptomatic infectiousness of about 1–2 days, whereas SARS had little or no presymptomatic infectiousness. 7 There have been few clinical studies to measure COVID-19 viraemia and how it changes over time in individuals. In one study of 17 patients with COVID-19, peak viraemia seems to be at the end of the incubation period, 8 pointing to the possibility that viraemia might be high enough to trigger transmission for 1–2 days before onset of symptoms. If these patterns are verified by more extensive clinical virological studies, COVID-19 would be expected to be more like influenza A than SARS. For SARS, peak infectiousness took place many days after first symptoms, hence the success of quarantine of patients with SARS soon after symptoms started 7 and the lack of success for this measure for influenza A and possibly for COVID-19. The third uncertainty is whether there are a large number of asymptomatic cases of COVID-19. Estimates suggest that about 80% of people with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic disease, 14% have severe disease, and 6% are critically ill, 9 implying that symptom-based control is unlikely to be sufficient unless these cases are only lightly infectious. The fourth uncertainty is the duration of the infectious period for COVID-19. The infectious period is typically short for influenza A, but it seems long for COVID-19 on the basis of the few available clinical virological studies, perhaps lasting for 10 days or more after the incubation period. 8 The reports of a few super-spreading events are a routine feature of all infectious diseases and should not be overinterpreted. 10 What do these comparisons with influenza A and SARS imply for the COVID-19 epidemic and its control? First, we think that the epidemic in any given country will initially spread more slowly than is typical for a new influenza A strain. COVID-19 had a doubling time in China of about 4–5 days in the early phases. 3 Second, the COVID-19 epidemic could be more drawn out than seasonal influenza A, which has relevance for its potential economic impact. Third, the effect of seasons on transmission of COVID-19 is unknown; 11 however, with an R0 of 2–3, the warm months of summer in the northern hemisphere might not necessarily reduce transmission below the value of unity as they do for influenza A, which typically has an R0 of around 1·1–1·5. 12 Closely linked to these factors and their epidemiological determinants is the impact of different mitigation policies on the course of the COVID-19 epidemic. A key issue for epidemiologists is helping policy makers decide the main objectives of mitigation—eg, minimising morbidity and associated mortality, avoiding an epidemic peak that overwhelms health-care services, keeping the effects on the economy within manageable levels, and flattening the epidemic curve to wait for vaccine development and manufacture on scale and antiviral drug therapies. Such mitigation objectives are difficult to achieve by the same interventions, so choices must be made about priorities. 13 For COVID-19, the potential economic impact of self-isolation or mandated quarantine could be substantial, as occurred in China. No vaccine or effective antiviral drug is likely to be available soon. Vaccine development is underway, but the key issues are not if a vaccine can be developed but where phase 3 trials will be done and who will manufacture vaccine at scale. The number of cases of COVID-19 are falling quickly in China, 4 but a site for phase 3 vaccine trials needs to be in a location where there is ongoing transmission of the disease. Manufacturing at scale requires one or more of the big vaccine manufacturers to take up the challenge and work closely with the biotechnology companies who are developing vaccine candidates. This process will take time and we are probably a least 1 year to 18 months away from substantial vaccine production. So what is left at present for mitigation is voluntary plus mandated quarantine, stopping mass gatherings, closure of educational institutes or places of work where infection has been identified, and isolation of households, towns, or cities. Some of the lessons from analyses of influenza A apply for COVID-19, but there are also differences. Social distancing measures reduce the value of the effective reproduction number R. With an early epidemic value of R0 of 2·5, social distancing would have to reduce transmission by about 60% or less, if the intrinsic transmission potential declines in the warm summer months in the northern hemisphere. This reduction is a big ask, but it did happen in China. School closure, a major pillar of the response to pandemic influenza A, 14 is unlikely to be effective given the apparent low rate of infection among children, although data are scarce. Avoiding large gatherings of people will reduce the number of super-spreading events; however, if prolonged contact is required for transmission, this measure might only reduce a small proportion of transmissions. Therefore, broader-scale social distancing is likely to be needed, as was put in place in China. This measure prevents transmission from symptomatic and non-symptomatic cases, hence flattening the epidemic and pushing the peak further into the future. Broader-scale social distancing provides time for the health services to treat cases and increase capacity, and, in the longer term, for vaccines and treatments to be developed. Containment could be targeted to particular areas, schools, or mass gatherings. This approach underway in northern Italy will provide valuable data on the effectiveness of such measures. The greater the reduction in transmission, the longer and flatter the epidemic curve (figure ), with the risk of resurgence when interventions are lifted perhaps to mitigate economic impact. Figure Illustrative simulations of a transmission model of COVID-19 A baseline simulation with case isolation only (red); a simulation with social distancing in place throughout the epidemic, flattening the curve (green), and a simulation with more effective social distancing in place for a limited period only, typically followed by a resurgent epidemic when social distancing is halted (blue). These are not quantitative predictions but robust qualitative illustrations for a range of model choices. The key epidemiological issues that determine the impact of social distancing measures are what proportion of infected individuals have mild symptoms and whether these individuals will self-isolate and to what effectiveness; how quickly symptomatic individuals take to isolate themselves after the onset of symptoms; and the duration of any non-symptomatic infectious period before clear symptoms occur with the linked issue of how transmissible COVID-19 is during this phase. Individual behaviour will be crucial to control the spread of COVID-19. Personal, rather than government action, in western democracies might be the most important issue. Early self-isolation, seeking medical advice remotely unless symptoms are severe, and social distancing are key. Government actions to ban mass gatherings are important, as are good diagnostic facilities and remotely accessed health advice, together with specialised treatment for people with severe disease. Isolating towns or even cities is not yet part of the UK Government action plan. 15 This plan is light on detail, given the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic and the many uncertainties, but it outlines four phases of action entitled contain, delay, research, and mitigate. 15 The UK has just moved from contain to delay, which aims to flatten the epidemic and lower peak morbidity and mortality. If measures are relaxed after a few months to avoid severe economic impact, a further peak is likely to occur in the autumn (figure). Italy, South Korea, Japan, and Iran are at the mitigate phase and trying to provide the best care possible for a rapidly growing number of people with COVID-19. The known epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 point to urgent priorities. Shortening the time from symptom onset to isolation is vital as it will reduce transmission and is likely to slow the epidemic (appendices 2, 3) However, strategies are also needed for reducing household transmission, supporting home treatment and diagnosis, and dealing with the economic consequences of absence from work. Peak demand for health services could still be high and the extent and duration of presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission—if this turns out to be a feature of COVID-19 infection—will determine the success of this strategy. 16 Contact tracing is of high importance in the early stages to contain spread, and model-based estimates suggest, with an R0 value of 2·5, that about 70% of contacts will have to be successfully traced to control early spread. 17 Analysis of individual contact patterns suggests that contact tracing can be a successful strategy in the early stages of an outbreak, but that the logistics of timely tracing on average 36 contacts per case will be challenging. 17 Super-spreading events are inevitable, and could overwhelm the contact tracing system, leading to the need for broader-scale social distancing interventions. Data from China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran suggest that the CFR increases sharply with age and is higher in people with COVID-19 and underlying comorbidities. 18 Targeted social distancing for these groups could be the most effective way to reduce morbidity and concomitant mortality. During the outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa in 2014–16, deaths from other causes increased because of a saturated health-care system and deaths of health-care workers. 19 These events underline the importance of enhanced support for health-care infrastructure and effective procedures for protecting staff from infection. In northern countries, there is speculation that changing contact patterns and warmer weather might slow the spread of the virus in the summer. 11 With an R0 of 2·5 or higher, reductions in transmission by social distancing would have to be large; and much of the changes in transmission of pandemic influenza in the summer of 2009 within Europe were thought to be due to school closures, but children are not thought to be driving transmission of COVID-19. Data from the southern hemisphere will assist in evaluating how much seasonality will influence COVID-19 transmission. Model-based predictions can help policy makers make the right decisions in a timely way, even with the uncertainties about COVID-19. Indicating what level of transmission reduction is required for social distancing interventions to mitigate the epidemic is a key activity (figure). However, it is easy to suggest a 60% reduction in transmission will do it or quarantining within 1 day from symptom onset will control transmission, but it is unclear what communication strategies or social distancing actions individuals and governments must put in place to achieve these desired outcomes. A degree of pragmatism will be needed for the implementation of social distancing and quarantine measures. Ongoing data collection and epidemiological analysis are therefore essential parts of assessing the impacts of mitigation strategies, alongside clinical research on how to best manage seriously ill patients with COVID-19. There are difficult decisions ahead for governments. How individuals respond to advice on how best to prevent transmission will be as important as government actions, if not more important. Government communication strategies to keep the public informed of how best to avoid infection are vital, as is extra support to manage the economic downturn.

0 comments Cited 1519 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Hospitalization Rates and Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 — COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1–30, 2020

Shikha Garg, Lindsay Kim, Michael Whitaker … (2020)

Since SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first detected in December 2019 ( 1 ), approximately 1.3 million cases have been reported worldwide ( 2 ), including approximately 330,000 in the United States ( 3 ). To conduct population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations in the United States, the COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) was created using the existing infrastructure of the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) ( 4 ) and the Respiratory Syncytial Virus Hospitalization Surveillance Network (RSV-NET). This report presents age-stratified COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates for patients admitted during March 1–28, 2020, and clinical data on patients admitted during March 1–30, 2020, the first month of U.S. surveillance. Among 1,482 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 74.5% were aged ≥50 years, and 54.4% were male. The hospitalization rate among patients identified through COVID-NET during this 4-week period was 4.6 per 100,000 population. Rates were highest (13.8) among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 178 (12%) adult patients with data on underlying conditions as of March 30, 2020, 89.3% had one or more underlying conditions; the most common were hypertension (49.7%), obesity (48.3%), chronic lung disease (34.6%), diabetes mellitus (28.3%), and cardiovascular disease (27.8%). These findings suggest that older adults have elevated rates of COVID-19–associated hospitalization and the majority of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 have underlying medical conditions. These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) † to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions, as well as the general public. In addition, older adults and persons with serious underlying medical conditions should avoid contact with persons who are ill and immediately contact their health care provider(s) if they have symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html) ( 5 ). Ongoing monitoring of hospitalization rates, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of hospitalized patients will be important to better understand the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States and the clinical spectrum of disease, and to help guide planning and prioritization of health care system resources. COVID-NET conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations among persons of all ages in 99 counties in 14 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah), distributed across all 10 U.S Department of Health and Human Services regions. § The catchment area represents approximately 10% of the U.S. population. Patients must be residents of a designated COVID-NET catchment area and hospitalized within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to meet the surveillance case definition. Testing is requested at the discretion of treating health care providers. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 is defined as a positive result by any test that has received Emergency Use Authorization for SARS-CoV-2 testing. ¶ COVID-NET surveillance officers in each state identify cases through active review of notifiable disease and laboratory databases and hospital admission and infection control practitioner logs. Weekly age-stratified hospitalization rates are estimated using the number of catchment area residents hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 as the numerator and National Center for Health Statistics vintage 2018 bridged-race postcensal population estimates for the denominator.** As of April 3, 2020, COVID-NET hospitalization rates are being published each week at https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_3.html. For each case, trained surveillance officers conduct medical chart abstractions using a standard case report form to collect data on patient characteristics, underlying medical conditions, clinical course, and outcomes. Chart reviews are finalized once patients have a discharge disposition. COVID-NET surveillance was initiated on March 23, 2020, with retrospective case identification of patients admitted during March 1–22, 2020, and prospective case identification during March 23–30, 2020. Clinical data on underlying conditions and symptoms at admission are presented through March 30; hospitalization rates are updated weekly and, therefore, are presented through March 28 (epidemiologic week 13). The COVID-19–associated hospitalization rate among patients identified through COVID-NET for the 4-week period ending March 28, 2020, was 4.6 per 100,000 population (Figure 1). Hospitalization rates increased with age, with a rate of 0.3 in persons aged 0–4 years, 0.1 in those aged 5–17 years, 2.5 in those aged 18–49 years, 7.4 in those aged 50–64 years, and 13.8 in those aged ≥65 years. Rates were highest among persons aged ≥65 years, ranging from 12.2 in those aged 65–74 years to 17.2 in those aged ≥85 years. More than half (805; 54.4%) of hospitalizations occurred among men; COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were higher among males than among females (5.1 versus 4.1 per 100,000 population). Among the 1,482 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations reported through COVID-NET, six (0.4%) each were patients aged 0–4 years and 5–17 years, 366 (24.7%) were aged 18–49 years, 461 (31.1%) were aged 50–64 years, and 643 (43.4%) were aged ≥65 years. Among patients with race/ethnicity data (580), 261 (45.0%) were non-Hispanic white (white), 192 (33.1%) were non-Hispanic black (black), 47 (8.1%) were Hispanic, 32 (5.5%) were Asian, two (0.3%) were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 46 (7.9%) were of other or unknown race. Rates varied widely by COVID-NET surveillance site (Figure 2). FIGURE 1 Laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated hospitalization rates,* by age group — COVID-NET, 14 states, † March 1–28, 2020 Abbreviation: COVID-NET = Coronavirus Disease 2019–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network. * Number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 per 100,000 population. † Counties included in COVID-NET surveillance: California (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties); Colorado (Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson counties); Connecticut (New Haven and Middlesex counties); Georgia (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, and Rockdale counties); Iowa (one county represented); Maryland (Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Queen Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester counties); Michigan (Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties); Minnesota (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties); New Mexico (Bernalillo, Chaves, Dona Ana, Grant, Luna, San Juan, and Santa Fe counties); New York (Albany, Columbia, Genesee, Greene, Livingston, Monroe, Montgomery, Ontario, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Wayne, and Yates counties); Ohio (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Hocking, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Perry, Pickaway and Union counties); Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties); Tennessee (Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson counties); and Utah (Salt Lake County). The figure is a bar chart showing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates, by age group, in 14 states during March 1–28, 2020 according to the Coronavirus Disease 2019–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network. FIGURE 2 Laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated hospitalization rates,* by surveillance site † — COVID-NET, 14 states, March 1–28, 2020 Abbreviation: COVID-NET = Coronavirus Disease 2019–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network. * Number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 per 100,000 population. † Counties included in COVID-NET surveillance: California (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties); Colorado (Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson counties); Connecticut (New Haven and Middlesex counties); Georgia (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, and Rockdale counties); Iowa (one county represented); Maryland (Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Queen Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester counties); Michigan (Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties); Minnesota (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties); New Mexico (Bernalillo, Chaves, Dona Ana, Grant, Luna, San Juan, and Santa Fe counties); New York (Albany, Columbia, Genesee, Greene, Livingston, Monroe, Montgomery, Ontario, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Wayne, and Yates counties); Ohio (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Hocking, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Perry, Pickaway and Union counties); Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties); Tennessee (Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson counties); and Utah (Salt Lake County). The figure is a bar chart showing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates, by surveillance site, in 14 states during March 1–28, 2020 according to the Coronavirus Disease 2019–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network. During March 1–30, underlying medical conditions and symptoms at admission were reported through COVID-NET for approximately 180 (12.1%) hospitalized adults (Table); 89.3% had one or more underlying conditions. The most commonly reported were hypertension (49.7%), obesity (48.3%), chronic lung disease (34.6%), diabetes mellitus (28.3%), and cardiovascular disease (27.8%). Among patients aged 18–49 years, obesity was the most prevalent underlying condition, followed by chronic lung disease (primarily asthma) and diabetes mellitus. Among patients aged 50–64 years, obesity was most prevalent, followed by hypertension and diabetes mellitus; and among those aged ≥65 years, hypertension was most prevalent, followed by cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus. Among 33 females aged 15–49 years hospitalized with COVID-19, three (9.1%) were pregnant. Among 167 patients with available data, the median interval from symptom onset to admission was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 3–9 days). The most common signs and symptoms at admission included cough (86.1%), fever or chills (85.0%), and shortness of breath (80.0%). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also common; 26.7% had diarrhea, and 24.4% had nausea or vomiting. TABLE Underlying conditions and symptoms among adults aged ≥18 years with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated hospitalizations — COVID-NET, 14 states,* March 1–30, 2020† Underlying condition Age group (yrs), no./total no. (%) Overall 18–49 50–64 ≥65 years Any underlying condition 159/178 (89.3) 41/48 (85.4) 51/59 (86.4) 67/71 (94.4) Hypertension 79/159 (49.7) 7/40 (17.5) 27/57 (47.4) 45/62 (72.6) Obesity§ 73/151 (48.3) 23/39 (59.0) 25/51 (49.0) 25/61 (41.0) Chronic metabolic disease¶ 60/166 (36.1) 10/46 (21.7) 21/56 (37.5) 29/64 (45.3) Diabetes mellitus 47/166 (28.3) 9/46 (19.6) 18/56 (32.1) 20/64 (31.3) Chronic lung disease 55/159 (34.6) 16/44 (36.4) 15/53 (28.3) 24/62 (38.7) Asthma 27/159 (17.0) 12/44 (27.3) 7/53 (13.2) 8/62 (12.9) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 17/159 (10.7) 0/44 (0.0) 3/53 (5.7) 14/62 (22.6) Cardiovascular disease** 45/162 (27.8) 2/43 (4.7) 11/56 (19.6) 32/63 (50.8) Coronary artery disease 23/162 (14.2) 0/43 (0.0) 7/56 (12.5) 16/63 (25.4) Congestive heart failure 11/162 (6.8) 2/43 (4.7) 3/56 (5.4) 6/63 (9.5) Neurologic disease 22/157 (14.0) 4/42 (9.5) 4/55 (7.3) 14/60 (23.3) Renal disease 20/153 (13.1) 3/41 (7.3) 2/53 (3.8) 15/59 (25.4) Immunosuppressive condition 15/156 (9.6) 5/43 (11.6) 4/54 (7.4) 6/59 (10.2) Gastrointestinal/Liver disease 10/152 (6.6) 4/42 (9.5) 0/54 (0.0) 6/56 (10.7) Blood disorder 9/156 (5.8) 1/43 (2.3) 1/55 (1.8) 7/58 (12.1) Rheumatologic/Autoimmune disease 3/154 (1.9) 1/42 (2.4) 0/54 (0.0) 2/58 (3.4) Pregnancy†† 3/33 (9.1) 3/33 (9.1) N/A N/A Symptom §§ Cough 155/180 (86.1) 43/47 (91.5) 54/60 (90.0) 58/73 (79.5) Fever/Chills 153/180 (85.0) 38/47 (80.9) 53/60 (88.3) 62/73 (84.9) Shortness of breath 144/180 (80.0) 40/47 (85.1) 50/60 (83.3) 54/73 (74.0) Myalgia 62/180 (34.4) 20/47 (42.6) 23/60 (38.3) 19/73 (26.0) Diarrhea 48/180 (26.7) 10/47 (21.3) 17/60 (28.3) 21/73 (28.8) Nausea/Vomiting 44/180 (24.4) 12/47 (25.5) 17/60 (28.3) 15/73 (20.5) Sore throat 32/180 (17.8) 8/47 (17.0) 13/60 (21.7) 11/73 (15.1) Headache 29/180 (16.1) 10/47 (21.3) 12/60 (20.0) 7/73 (9.6) Nasal congestion/Rhinorrhea 29/180 (16.1) 8/47 (17.0) 13/60 (21.7) 8/73 (11.0) Chest pain 27/180 (15.0) 9/47 (19.1) 13/60 (21.7) 5/73 (6.8) Abdominal pain 15/180 (8.3) 6/47 (12.8) 6/60 (10.0) 3/73 (4.1) Wheezing 12/180 (6.7) 3/47 (6.4) 2/60 (3.3) 7/73 (9.6) Altered mental status/Confusion 11/180 (6.1) 3/47 (6.4) 2/60 (3.3) 6/73 (8.2) Abbreviations: COVID-NET = Coronavirus Disease 2019–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network; N/A = not applicable. * Counties included in COVID-NET surveillance: California (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties); Colorado (Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson counties); Connecticut (New Haven and Middlesex counties); Georgia (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, and Rockdale counties); Iowa (one county represented); Maryland (Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Queen Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester counties); Michigan (Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties); Minnesota (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties); New Mexico (Bernalillo, Chaves, Dona Ana, Grant, Luna, San Juan, and Santa Fe counties); New York (Albany, Columbia, Genesee, Greene, Livingston, Monroe, Montgomery, Ontario, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Wayne, and Yates counties); Ohio (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Hocking, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Perry, Pickaway and Union counties); Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties); Tennessee (Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson counties); and Utah (Salt Lake County). † COVID-NET included data for one child aged 5–17 years with underlying medical conditions and symptoms at admission; data for this child are not included in this table. This child was reported to have chronic lung disease (asthma). Symptoms included fever, cough, gastrointestinal symptoms, shortness of breath, chest pain, and a sore throat on admission. § Obesity is defined as calculated body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2, and if BMI is missing, by International Classification of Diseases discharge diagnosis codes. Among 73 patients with obesity, 51 (69.9%) had obesity defined as BMI 30–<40 kg/m2, and 22 (30.1%) had severe obesity defined as BMI ≥40 kg/m2. ¶ Among the 60 patients with chronic metabolic disease, 45 had diabetes mellitus only, 13 had thyroid dysfunction only, and two had diabetes mellitus and thyroid dysfunction. ** Cardiovascular disease excludes hypertension. †† Restricted to women aged 15–49 years. §§ Symptoms were collected through review of admission history and physical exam notes in the medical record and might be determined by subjective or objective findings. In addition to the symptoms in the table, the following less commonly reported symptoms were also noted for adults with information on symptoms (180): hemoptysis/bloody sputum (2.2%), rash (1.1%), conjunctivitis (0.6%), and seizure (0.6%). Discussion During March 1–28, 2020, the overall laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalization rate was 4.6 per 100,000 population; rates increased with age, with the highest rates among adults aged ≥65 years. Approximately 90% of hospitalized patients identified through COVID-NET had one or more underlying conditions, the most common being obesity, hypertension, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. Using the existing infrastructure of two respiratory virus surveillance platforms, COVID-NET was implemented to produce robust, weekly, age-stratified hospitalization rates using standardized data collection methods. These data are being used, along with data from other surveillance platforms (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview.html), to monitor COVID-19 disease activity and severity in the United States. During the first month of surveillance, COVID-NET hospitalization rates ranged from 0.1 per 100,000 population in persons aged 5–17 years to 17.2 per 100,000 population in adults aged ≥85 years, whereas cumulative influenza hospitalization rates during the first 4 weeks of each influenza season (epidemiologic weeks 40–43) over the past 5 seasons have ranged from 0.1 in persons aged 5–17 years to 2.2–5.4 in adults aged ≥85 years ( 6 ). COVID-NET rates during this first 4-week period of surveillance are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution; given the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, rates are expected to increase as additional cases are identified and as SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity in the United States increases. In the COVID-NET catchment population, approximately 49% of residents are male and 51% of residents are female, whereas 54% of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations occurred in males and 46% occurred in females. These data suggest that males may be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 compared with females. Similarly, in the COVID-NET catchment population, approximately 59% of residents are white, 18% are black, and 14% are Hispanic; however, among 580 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with race/ethnicity data, approximately 45% were white, 33% were black, and 8% were Hispanic, suggesting that black populations might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19. These findings, including the potential impact of both sex and race on COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates, need to be confirmed with additional data. Most of the hospitalized patients had underlying conditions, some of which are recognized to be associated with severe COVID-19 disease, including chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus ( 5 ). COVID-NET does not collect data on nonhospitalized patients; thus, it was not possible to compare the prevalence of underlying conditions in hospitalized versus nonhospitalized patients. Many of the documented underlying conditions among hospitalized COVID-19 patients are highly prevalent in the United States. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, hypertension prevalence among U.S. adults is 29% overall, ranging from 7.5%–63% across age groups ( 7 ), and age-adjusted obesity prevalence is 42% (range across age groups = 40%–43%) ( 8 ). Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, hypertension prevalence was 50% (range across age groups = 18%–73%), and obesity prevalence was 48% (range across age groups = 41%–59%). In addition, the prevalences of several underlying conditions identified through COVID-NET were similar to those for hospitalized influenza patients identified through FluSurv-NET during influenza seasons 2014–15 through 2018–19: 41%–51% of patients had cardiovascular disease (excluding hypertension), 39%–45% had chronic metabolic disease, 33%–40% had obesity, and 29%–31% had chronic lung disease ( 6 ). Data on hypertension are not collected by FluSurv-NET. Among women aged 15–49 years hospitalized with COVID-19 and identified through COVID-NET, 9% were pregnant, which is similar to an estimated 9.9% of the general population of women aged 15–44 years who are pregnant at any given time based on 2010 data. †† Similar to other reports from the United States ( 9 ) and China ( 1 ), these findings indicate that a high proportion of U.S. patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are older and have underlying medical conditions. The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, hospitalization rates by age and COVID-NET site are preliminary and might change as additional cases are identified from this surveillance period. Second, whereas minimum case data to produce weekly age-stratified hospitalization rates are usually available within 7 days of case identification, availability of detailed clinical data are delayed because of the need for medical chart abstractions. As of March 30, chart abstractions had been conducted for approximately 200 COVID-19 patients; the frequency and distribution of underlying conditions during this time might change as additional data become available. Clinical course and outcomes will be presented once the number of cases with complete medical chart abstractions are sufficient; many patients are still hospitalized at the time of this report. Finally, testing for SARS-CoV-2 among patients identified through COVID-NET is performed at the discretion of treating health care providers, and testing practices and capabilities might vary widely across providers and facilities. As a result, underascertainment of cases in COVID-NET is likely. Additional data on testing practices related to SARS-CoV-2 will be collected in the future to account for underascertainment using described methods ( 10 ). Early data from COVID-NET suggest that COVID-19–associated hospitalizations in the United States are highest among older adults, and nearly 90% of persons hospitalized have one or more underlying medical conditions. These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions. Ongoing monitoring of hospitalization rates, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of hospitalized patients will be important to better understand the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States and the clinical spectrum of disease, and to help guide planning and prioritization of health care system resources. Summary What is already known about this topic? Population-based rates of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated hospitalizations are lacking in the United States. What is added by this report? COVID-NET was implemented to produce robust, weekly, age-stratified COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates. Hospitalization rates increase with age and are highest among older adults; the majority of hospitalized patients have underlying conditions. What are the implications for public health practice? Strategies to prevent COVID-19, including social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, are particularly important to protect older adults and those with underlying conditions. Ongoing monitoring of hospitalization rates is critical to understanding the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States and to guide planning and prioritization of health care resources.

0 comments Cited 1128 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19

Cristina Menni, Ana M. Valdes, Maxim Freidin … (2020)

A total of 2,618,862 participants reported their potential symptoms of COVID-19 on a smartphone-based app. Among the 18,401 who had undergone a SARS-CoV-2 test, the proportion of participants who reported loss of smell and taste was higher in those with a positive test result (4,668 of 7,178 individuals; 65.03%) than in those with a negative test result (2,436 of 11,223 participants; 21.71%) (odds ratio = 6.74; 95% confidence interval = 6.31–7.21). A model combining symptoms to predict probable infection was applied to the data from all app users who reported symptoms (805,753) and predicted that 140,312 (17.42%) participants are likely to have COVID-19.

0 comments Cited 684 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Andrew T Chan

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Lancet Public Health

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Lancet Public Health

Title: The Lancet. Public Health

Publisher: Elsevier, Ltd

ISSN (Electronic): 2468-2667

Publication date PMC-release: 31 July 2020

Publication date Collection: September 2020

Publication date (Electronic): 31 July 2020

Volume: 5

Issue: 9

Pages: e475-e483

Affiliations

[a ]Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

[b ]Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

[c ]Center on Genomics, Vulnerable Populations, and Health Disparities, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

[d ]Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

[e ]Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

[f ]Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

[g ]Department of Nutrition, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

[h ]Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

[i ]Department of Immunology and Infectious Disease, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

[j ]School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK

[k ]Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK

[l ]Department of Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

[m ]Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

[n ]Division of Women's Health, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

[o ]Zoe Global, London, UK

[p ]Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

[q ]Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness, Cambridge, MA, USA

Author notes

[* ]Correspondence to: Prof Andrew T Chan, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA achan@ 123456mgh.harvard.edu

[*]

Contributed equally as first authors

[†]

Contributed equally

[‡]

Members listed in the appendix

Article

Publisher ID: S2468-2667(20)30164-X

DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X

PMC ID: 7491202

PubMed ID: 32745512

SO-VID: f73f3fbf-ce08-48b4-820a-c764794d8eee

License:

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

Read this article at

Summary

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 24

How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic?

Hospitalization Rates and Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 — COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1–30, 2020

Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 240

Cited by 993