Lindsay K. Tompkins’s research while affiliated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other places

Background Risk of experiencing a systemic adverse event (AE) after mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination may be greater among persons with a history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; data on serious events are limited. We assessed if adults reporting systemic AEs resulting in emergency department visits or hospitalizations during days 0–7 after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 were more likely to have a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with persons who reported no or non-severe systemic AEs. Methods We conducted a nested case-control study using v-safe surveillance data. Participants were ≥18 years and received dose 1 during December 14, 2020─May 9, 2021. Cases reported severe systemic AEs 0–7 days after vaccination. Three controls were frequency matched per case by age, vaccination date, and days since vaccination. Follow-up surveys collected SARS-CoV-2 histories. Results Follow-up survey response rates were 38.6% (potential cases) and 56.8% (potential controls). In multivariable analyses including 3,862 case-patients and 11,586 controls, the odds of experiencing a severe systemic AE were 2.4 (Moderna, mRNA-1273; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.89, 3.09) and 1.5 (Pfizer-BioNTech, BNT162b2; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.02) times higher among participants with pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 histories compared with those without. Medical attention of any kind for symptoms during days 0–7 following dose 2 was not common among case-patients or controls. Conclusions History of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with severe systemic AEs following dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; the effect varied by vaccine received. Most participants who experienced severe systemic AEs following dose 1 did not require medical attention of any kind for symptoms following dose 2. Vaccine providers can use these findings to counsel patients who had pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection histories, experienced severe systemic AEs following dose 1, and are considering not receiving additional mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

Objective: This study assesses the risk of severe clinical outcomes during hospitalizations of adults with asthma and/or COPD plus COVID-19 and compares those risks with those during hospitalizations of adults with asthma and/or COPD without COVID-19. Methods: We used data from 877 U.S. hospitals from the Premier Healthcare Database during March 2020–March 2021. Hospitalizations (n = 311,215) among patients aged ≥18 years with an ICD-10-CM diagnosis involving asthma or COPD were classified into three groups: adults with asthma (but not COPD), adults with COPD (but not asthma), and adults with both asthma and COPD. We used multivariable Poisson regression to assess associations of severe clinical outcomes [intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and death] and COVID-19 status. Results: The percentage of hospitalizations among patients with asthma and COVID-19 resulting in ICU admission, IMV, and death were 46.9%, 14.0%, and 8.0%, respectively. These risks were higher than those among patients with asthma without COVID-19 (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.17 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14–1.21], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.50–1.73], and 5.56 [95% CI, 4.89–6.32]), respectively. Risks of ICU admission, IMV, and death were also high among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and exceeded the corresponding risks among patients with COPD without COVID-19. Conclusion: Hospitalizations among patients with asthma and/or COPD with COVID-19 had a more severe clinical course than hospitalizations for asthma and/or COPD exacerbations without COVID-19.

Exposure to air pollution is associated with respiratory and cardiovascular effects, particularly among people with underlying respiratory and heart disease. It is therefore important for individuals with respiratory and heart disease to be aware of air quality. However, information about the most effective communication channels for disseminating air quality alerts is limited. We assessed communication channels used for receiving air quality alerts among U.S. adults using data from the summer 2020 wave of ConsumerStyles, a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (n=4053). We calculated weighted percentages of respondents who received air quality alerts from six communication channels and stratified by demographic and health characteristics. We calculated weighted prevalence ratios (PRs) adjusted for sex, age, race/ethnicity, and education to assess if communication channel use varied by presence of respiratory or heart disease. Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults had heard or read about air quality alerts. Television was the most commonly reported communication channel for receiving alerts (57.5%), followed by app on mobile phone or device (30.2%) and internet or social media (26.4%). Communication channels differed most prominently by age. The proportion of adults receiving alerts from specific communication channels did not notably vary by presence of heart disease. Adults with respiratory disease more often reported receiving alerts from their doctor’s office than adults without respiratory disease (PR: 3.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.49, 6.45). These findings can be used by public health officials to increase awareness of poor air quality days and improve the reach of alerts to target populations.

Objective The aim of the study was to assess occupational health effects 1 month after responding to a natural gas pipeline explosion. Methods First responders to a pipeline explosion in Kentucky were interviewed about pre- and post-response health symptoms, post-response health care, and physical exertion and personal protective equipment (PPE) use during the response. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between several risk factors and development of post-response symptoms. Results Among 173 first responders involved, 105 (firefighters [58%], emergency medical services [19%], law enforcement [10%], and others [12%]) were interviewed. Half (53%) reported at least 1 new or worsening symptom, including upper respiratory symptoms (39%), headache (18%), eye irritation (17%), and lower respiratory symptoms (16%). The majority (79%) of symptomatic responders did not seek post-response care. Compared with light-exertion responders, hard-exertion responders (48%) had significantly greater odds of upper respiratory symptoms (aOR: 2.99, 95% CI: 1.25–7.50). Forty-four percent of responders and 77% of non-firefighter responders reported not using any PPE. Conclusions Upper respiratory symptoms were common among first responders of a natural gas pipeline explosion and associated with hard-exertion activity. Emergency managers should ensure responders are trained in, equipped with, and properly use PPE during these incidents and encourage responders to seek post-response health care when needed.

Objectives. To assess SARS-CoV-2 transmission within a correctional facility and recommend mitigation strategies. Methods. From April 29 to May 15, 2020, we established the point prevalence of COVID-19 among incarcerated persons and staff within a correctional facility in Arkansas. Participants provided respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing and completed questionnaires on symptoms and factors associated with transmission. Results. Of 1647 incarcerated persons and 128 staff tested, 30.5% of incarcerated persons (range by housing unit = 0.0%–58.2%) and 2.3% of staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among those who tested positive and responded to symptom questions (431 incarcerated persons, 3 staff), 81.2% and 33.3% were asymptomatic, respectively. Most incarcerated persons (58.0%) reported wearing cloth face coverings 8 hours or less per day, and 63.3% reported close contact with someone other than their bunkmate. Conclusions. If testing remained limited to symptomatic individuals, fewer cases would have been detected or detection would have been delayed, allowing transmission to continue. Rapid implementation of mass testing and strict enforcement of infection prevention and control measures may be needed to mitigate spread of SARS-CoV-2 in this setting. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 18, 2021: e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306117 )