Last data update: May 13, 2024. (Total: 46773 publications since 2009)
Records 1-4 (of 4 Records) |
Query Trace: Brown AM[original query] |
---|
COVID-19 case definitions, diagnostic testing criteria, and surveillance across the pandemic’s 25 highest burden countries (preprint)
Suthar AB , Schubert S , Garon J , Couture A , Brown AM , Charania S . medRxiv 2021 2021.05.11.21257047 Objective We compared suspect, probable, and confirmed case definitions, as well as diagnostic testing criteria, used in the COVID-19 pandemic’s 25 highest burden countries to aid interpretation of global and national surveillance data.Methods We identified the COVID-19 pandemic’s 25 countries with the highest disease burden based on the number of cumulative reported cases to the World Health Organization (WHO) as of 1 October 2020. We searched official websites of these countries for suspect, probable, and confirmed case definitions. Given that confirmation of COVID-19 usually requires diagnostic testing, we also searched for diagnostic testing eligibility criteria in these countries. Extracted case definitions and testing criteria were managed in a database and analyzed in Microsoft Excel.Findings We identified suspect, probable, and confirmed case definitions in 96%, 64%, and 100% of countries, respectively. Testing criteria were identified in 100% of countries. 56% of identified countries followed WHO recommendations for using a combination of clinical and epidemiological criteria as part of the suspect case definition. 75% of identified countries followed WHO recommendations on using clinical, epidemiological, and diagnostic criteria for probable cases. 72% of countries followed WHO recommendations on using PCR testing for confirming a case of COVID-19. Finally, 64% of countries used testing eligibility criteria at least as permissive as WHO.Conclusion There is marked heterogeneity in who is eligible for testing in countries and how countries define a case of COVID-19. This affects the ability to compare burden, transmission, and response impact estimates derived from case surveillance data across countries.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are available in the manuscript body and appendices. |
Burkholderia cepacia complex outbreak linked to a no-rinse cleansing foam product, United States-2017-2018
Seelman SL , Bazaco MC , Wellman A , Hardy C , Fatica MK , Huang MJ , Brown AM , Garner K , Yang WC , Norris C , Moulton-Meissner H , Paoline J , BickingKinsey C , Kim JJ , Kim M , Terashita D , Mehr J , Crosby AJ , Viazis S , Crist MB . Epidemiol Infect 2022 150 1-26 In March 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California Department of Public Health, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and Pennsylvania Department of Health initiated an investigation of an outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) infections. Sixty infections were identified in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nevada and Ohio. The infections were linked to a no-rinse cleansing foam product (NRCFP), produced by Manufacturer A, used for skin care of patients in healthcare settings. FDA inspected Manufacturer A's production facility (manufacturing site of over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics), reviewed production records and collected product and environmental samples for analysis. FDA's inspection found poor manufacturing practices. Analysis by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis confirmed a match between NRCFP samples and clinical isolates. Manufacturer A conducted extensive recalls, FDA issued a warning letter citing the manufacturer's inadequate manufacturing practices, and federal, state and local partners issued public communications to advise patients, pharmacies, other healthcare providers and healthcare facilities to stop using the recalled NRCFP. This investigation highlighted the importance of following appropriate manufacturing practices to minimize microbial contamination of cosmetic products, especially if intended for use in healthcare settings. |
Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States.
Lewis NM , Self WH , Gaglani M , Ginde AA , Douin DJ , Keipp Talbot H , Casey JD , Mohr NM , Zepeski A , Ghamande SA , McNeal TA , Shapiro NI , Gibbs KW , Files DC , Hager DN , Shehu A , Prekker ME , Erickson HL , Gong MN , Mohamed A , Johnson NJ , Srinivasan V , Steingrub JS , Peltan ID , Brown AM , Martin ET , Monto AS , Khan A , Busse LW , Ten Lohuis CC , Duggal B , Wilson JG , Gordon AJ , Qadir N , Chang SY , Mallow C , Rivas C , Babcock HM , Kwon JH , Exline MC , Lauring AS , Halasa N , Chappell JD , Grijalva CG , Rice TW , Rhoads JP , Jones ID , Stubblefield WB , Baughman A , Womack KN , Lindsell CJ , Hart KW , Zhu Y , Adams K , Patel MM , Tenforde MW . Clin Infect Dis 2022 75 S159-S166 BACKGROUND: Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the viral vector 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 March 11-December 15, 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 3,979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2.229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% 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%]) post-vaccination. 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 post-vaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients. |
Coronavirus Disease Case Definitions, Diagnostic Testing Criteria, and Surveillance in 25 Countries with Highest Reported Case Counts.
Suthar AB , Schubert S , Garon J , Couture A , Brown AM , Charania S . Emerg Infect Dis 2022 28 (1) 148-156 We compared case definitions for suspected, probable, and confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19), as well as diagnostic testing criteria, used in the 25 countries with the highest reported case counts as of October 1, 2020. Of the identified countries, 56% followed World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for using a combination of clinical and epidemiologic criteria as part of the suspected case definition. A total of 75% of identified countries followed WHO recommendations on using clinical, epidemiologic, and diagnostic criteria for probable cases; 72% followed WHO recommendations to use PCR testing to confirm COVID-19. Finally, 64% of countries used testing eligibility criteria at least as permissive as WHO. We observed marked heterogeneity in testing eligibility requirements and in how countries define a COVID-19 case. This heterogeneity affects the ability to compare case counts, transmission, and vaccine effectiveness, as well as estimates derived from case surveillance data across countries. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 13, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure