BACKGROUND: Older adults and people from certain racial and ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths. METHODS: Using data from the Premier Healthcare Database on 181( )813 hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19 during March-September 2020, we applied multivariable log-binomial regression to assess the associations between age and race/ethnicity and COVID-19 clinical severity (intensive care unit [ICU] admission, invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], and death) and to determine whether the impact of age on clinical severity differs by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, 84( )497 (47%) patients were admitted to the ICU, 29( )078 (16%) received IMV, and 27( )864 (15%) died in the hospital. Increased age was strongly associated with clinical severity when controlling for underlying medical conditions and other covariates; the strength of this association differed by race/ethnicity. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, risk of death was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99) and higher among Hispanic/Latino patients (risk ratio [RR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20), non-Hispanic Asian patients (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23), and patients of other racial and ethnic groups (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21). Risk of ICU admission and risk of IMV were elevated among some racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that age is a driver of poor outcomes among hospitalized persons with COVID-19. Additionally, clinical severity may be elevated among patients of some racial and ethnic minority groups. Public health strategies to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rates among older adults and racial and ethnic minorities are essential to reduce poor outcomes.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, primarily used to treat autoimmune diseases and to prevent and treat malaria, received national attention in early March 2020, as potential treatment and prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). On March 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in the Strategic National Stockpile to be used by licensed health care providers to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 when the providers determine the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk to the patient.* Following reports of cardiac and other adverse events in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (2), on April 24, 2020, FDA issued a caution against its use(†) and on June 15, rescinded its EUA for hydroxychloroquine from the Strategic National Stockpile.(§) Following the FDA's issuance of caution and EUA rescindment, on May 12 and June 16, the federal COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel issued recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19; the panel also noted that at that time no medication could be recommended for COVID-19 pre- or postexposure prophylaxis outside the setting of a clinical trial (3). However, public discussion concerning the effectiveness of these drugs on outcomes of COVID-19 (4,5), and clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 continue.(¶) In response to recent reports of notable increases in prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (6), CDC analyzed outpatient retail pharmacy transaction data to identify potential differences in prescriptions dispensed by provider type during January-June 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Before 2020, primary care providers and specialists who routinely prescribed hydroxychloroquine, such as rheumatologists and dermatologists, accounted for approximately 97% of new prescriptions. New prescriptions by specialists who did not typically prescribe these medications (defined as specialties accounting for ≤2% of new prescriptions before 2020) increased from 1,143 prescriptions in February 2020 to 75,569 in March 2020, an 80-fold increase from March 2019. Although dispensing trends are returning to prepandemic levels, continued adherence to current clinical guidelines for the indicated use of these medications will ensure their availability and benefit to patients for whom their use is indicated (3,4), because current data on treatment and pre- or postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 indicate that the potential benefits of these drugs do not appear to outweigh their risks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program created standardized sub-county geographies that are comparable over time, place, and outcomes. Expected census tract-level counts were calculated for asthma emergency department visits and lung cancer. Census tracts were aggregated for various total population and sub-population thresholds, then suppression and stability were examined. A total of 5,000 persons was recommended for the more common outcome scheme and a total of 20,000 persons was recommended for the rare outcome scheme. Health outcomes with a median case count of 17.0 cases or higher should produce stable estimates at the census tract level. This project generated recommendations for three sub-county geographies that will be useful for surveillance purposes: census tract, a more common outcome aggregation scheme, and a rare outcome aggregation scheme. This methodology can be applied anywhere to aggregate geographic units and produce stable rates at a finer resolution.

RATIONALE: While associations between air pollution and respiratory morbidity for adults 65 and older are well-documented in the United States, the evidence for people under 65 is less extensive. To address this gap, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program collected respiratory emergency department (ED) data from 17 states. OBJECTIVES: Estimate age-specific acute effects of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on respiratory ED visits. METHODS: We conducted time-series analyses in 894 counties by linking daily respiratory ED visits with estimated ozone and PM2.5 concentrations during the week before the date of the visit. Overall effect estimates were obtained using a Bayesian hierarchical model to combine county estimates for each pollutant by age group (children 0-18, adults 19-64, adults >/=65, and all ages) and by outcome group (acute respiratory infection, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and all respiratory ED visits). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Rate ratios (95% credible interval) per 10 microg/m3 increase in PM2.5 and all respiratory ED visits were 1.024 (1.018, 1.029) among children, 1.008 (1.004, 1.012) among adults <65, and 1.002 (0.996, 1.007) among adults 65 and older. Per 20 ppb increase in ozone, rate ratios were 1.017 (1.011, 1.023) among children, 1.051 (1.046, 1.056) among adults <65, and 1.033 (1.026, 1.040) among adults 65 and older. Associations varied in magnitude by age group for each outcome group. CONCLUSIONS: These results address a gap in the evidence used to ensure adequate public health protection under national air pollution policies.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (Tracking Program) is a multidisciplinary collaboration that involves the ongoing collection, integration, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of data from environmental hazard monitoring, human exposure surveillance, and health effects surveillance. With a renewed focus on data-driven decision-making, the CDC's Tracking Program emphasizes dissemination of actionable data to public health practitioners, policy makers, and communities. The CDC's National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network), a Web-based system with components at the national, state, and local levels, houses environmental public health data used to inform public health actions (PHAs) to improve community health. This article serves as a detailed landscape on the Tracking Program and Tracking Network and the Tracking Program's leading performance measure, "public health actions." Tracking PHAs are qualitative statements addressing a local problem or situation, the role of the state or local Tracking Program, how the problem or situation was addressed, and the action taken. More than 400 PHAs have been reported by funded state and local health departments since the Tracking Program began collecting PHAs in 2005. Three case studies are provided to illustrate the use of the Tracking Program resources and data on the Tracking Network, and the diversity of actions taken. Through a collaborative network of experts, data, and tools, the Tracking Program and its Tracking Network are actively informing state and local PHAs. In a time of competing priorities and limited funding, PHAs can serve as a powerful tool to advance environmental public health practice.

CONTEXT: Public health surveillance includes dissemination of data and information to those who need it to take action to prevent or control disease. The concept of data to action is explicit in the mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program (Tracking Program). The CDC has built a National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network) to integrate health and environmental data to drive public health action (PHA) to improve communities' health. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the Tracking Program and Tracking Network in environmental public health practice and policy making. DESIGN: We analyzed information on how Tracking (all program components hereafter referred to generally as "Tracking") has been used to drive PHAs within funded states and cities (grantees). Two case studies are presented to highlight Tracking's utility. SETTING: Analyses included all grantees funded between 2005 and 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven states, 3 cities, and the District of Columbia ever received funding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We categorized each PHA reported to determine how grantees became involved, their role, the problems addressed, and the overall action. RESULTS: Tracking grantees reported 178 PHAs from 2006 to 2013. The most common overall action was "provided information in response to concern" (n = 42), followed by "improved a public health program, intervention, or response plan" (n = 35). Tracking's role was most often either to enhance surveillance (24%) or to analyze data (23%). In 47% of PHAs, the underlying problem was a concern about possible elevated rates of a health outcome, a potential exposure, or a potential association between a hazard and a health outcome. PHAs were started by a request for assistance (48%), in response to an emergency (8%), and though routine work by Tracking programs (43%). CONCLUSION: Our review shows that the data, expertise, technical infrastructure, and other resources of the Tracking Program and Tracking Network are driving state and local PHAs.