17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Older People Living in Long-Term Care Facilities and Mortality Rates During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: Preliminary Epidemiological Data and Lessons to Learn

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background: Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF) in Italy have been particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in terms of mortality rates of older residents. However, it is still unclear the actual extent of this situation. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the extent of mortality rates of older adults in LTCF during the pandemic across different regions of Italy, compared to the previous years and to older general population not resident in LTCF.

          Methods: We extracted and analyzed data collected by three Italian institutions (i.e., Italian Statistician Institute ISTAT, Italian N.I.H, Milan Health Unit) about the number of deaths among older people living in the community and among LTCF residents during the pandemic and the previous years. We also compared the observed mortality rate among LTCF residents in each Italian Region with the corresponding expected number of deaths of the general older adult population to obtain an observed/expected ratio (O/E ratio).

          Results: During the pandemic, about 8.5% ( N = 6,797) of Italian older adults residents in LTCF died. Findings resulting from the O/E ratio suggest that LTCF residents (in particular in the Lombardy Region) show higher mortality rates when compared to expected values of mortality rates among the older general population living in the community. Furthermore, we found that the risk of death among LTCF residents increased about 4 times during the pandemic when compared to the previous years.

          Conclusions: Mortality rates in LTCF were high during the pandemic, especially in Lombardy. Possible causes of higher mortality rates in LTCF and suggestions for specific targeted interventions are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak

          Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by SARS-COV2 and represents the causative agent of a potentially fatal disease that is of great global public health concern. Based on the large number of infected people that were exposed to the wet animal market in Wuhan City, China, it is suggested that this is likely the zoonotic origin of COVID-19. Person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 infection led to the isolation of patients that were subsequently administered a variety of treatments. Extensive measures to reduce person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 have been implemented to control the current outbreak. Special attention and efforts to protect or reduce transmission should be applied in susceptible populations including children, health care providers, and elderly people. In this review, we highlights the symptoms, epidemiology, transmission, pathogenesis, phylogenetic analysis and future directions to control the spread of this fatal disease.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to COVID-19 in Italy

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus

              Introduction In Wuhan, China, a novel and alarmingly contagious primary atypical (viral) pneumonia broke out in December 2019. It has since been identified as a zoonotic coronavirus, similar to SARS coronavirus and MERS coronavirus and named COVID-19. As of 8 February 2020, 33 738 confirmed cases and 811 deaths have been reported in China. Here we review the basic reproduction number (R 0) of the COVID-19 virus. R 0 is an indication of the transmissibility of a virus, representing the average number of new infections generated by an infectious person in a totally naïve population. For R 0 > 1, the number infected is likely to increase, and for R 0 < 1, transmission is likely to die out. The basic reproduction number is a central concept in infectious disease epidemiology, indicating the risk of an infectious agent with respect to epidemic spread. Methods and Results PubMed, bioRxiv and Google Scholar were accessed to search for eligible studies. The term ‘coronavirus & basic reproduction number’ was used. The time period covered was from 1 January 2020 to 7 February 2020. For this time period, we identified 12 studies which estimated the basic reproductive number for COVID-19 from China and overseas. Table 1 shows that the estimates ranged from 1.4 to 6.49, with a mean of 3.28, a median of 2.79 and interquartile range (IQR) of 1.16. Table 1 Published estimates of R 0 for 2019-nCoV Study (study year) Location Study date Methods Approaches R 0 estimates (average) 95% CI Joseph et al. 1 Wuhan 31 December 2019–28 January 2020 Stochastic Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC) MCMC methods with Gibbs sampling and non-informative flat prior, using posterior distribution 2.68 2.47–2.86 Shen et al. 2 Hubei province 12–22 January 2020 Mathematical model, dynamic compartmental model with population divided into five compartments: susceptible individuals, asymptomatic individuals during the incubation period, infectious individuals with symptoms, isolated individuals with treatment and recovered individuals R 0 = \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} }{}$\beta$\end{document} / \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} }{}$\alpha$\end{document} \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} }{}$\beta$\end{document} = mean person-to-person transmission rate/day in the absence of control interventions, using nonlinear least squares method to get its point estimate \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} }{}$\alpha$\end{document} = isolation rate = 6 6.49 6.31–6.66 Liu et al. 3 China and overseas 23 January 2020 Statistical exponential Growth, using SARS generation time = 8.4 days, SD = 3.8 days Applies Poisson regression to fit the exponential growth rateR 0 = 1/M(−𝑟)M = moment generating function of the generation time distributionr = fitted exponential growth rate 2.90 2.32–3.63 Liu et al. 3 China and overseas 23 January 2020 Statistical maximum likelihood estimation, using SARS generation time = 8.4 days, SD = 3.8 days Maximize log-likelihood to estimate R 0 by using surveillance data during a disease epidemic, and assuming the secondary case is Poisson distribution with expected value R 0 2.92 2.28–3.67 Read et al. 4 China 1–22 January 2020 Mathematical transmission model assuming latent period = 4 days and near to the incubation period Assumes daily time increments with Poisson-distribution and apply a deterministic SEIR metapopulation transmission model, transmission rate = 1.94, infectious period =1.61 days 3.11 2.39–4.13 Majumder et al. 5 Wuhan 8 December 2019 and 26 January 2020 Mathematical Incidence Decay and Exponential Adjustment (IDEA) model Adopted mean serial interval lengths from SARS and MERS ranging from 6 to 10 days to fit the IDEA model, 2.0–3.1 (2.55) / WHO China 18 January 2020 / / 1.4–2.5 (1.95) / Cao et al. 6 China 23 January 2020 Mathematical model including compartments Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered-Death-Cumulative (SEIRDC) R = K 2 (L × D) + K(L + D) + 1L = average latent period = 7,D = average latent infectious period = 9,K = logarithmic growth rate of the case counts 4.08 / Zhao et al. 7 China 10–24 January 2020 Statistical exponential growth model method adopting serial interval from SARS (mean = 8.4 days, SD = 3.8 days) and MERS (mean = 7.6 days, SD = 3.4 days) Corresponding to 8-fold increase in the reporting rateR 0 = 1/M(−𝑟)𝑟 =intrinsic growth rateM = moment generating function 2.24 1.96–2.55 Zhao et al. 7 China 10–24 January 2020 Statistical exponential growth model method adopting serial interval from SARS (mean = 8.4 days, SD = 3.8 days) and MERS (mean = 7.6 days, SD = 3.4 days) Corresponding to 2-fold increase in the reporting rateR 0 = 1/M(−𝑟)𝑟 =intrinsic growth rateM = moment generating function 3.58 2.89–4.39 Imai (2020) 8 Wuhan January 18, 2020 Mathematical model, computational modelling of potential epidemic trajectories Assume SARS-like levels of case-to-case variability in the numbers of secondary cases and a SARS-like generation time with 8.4 days, and set number of cases caused by zoonotic exposure and assumed total number of cases to estimate R 0 values for best-case, median and worst-case 1.5–3.5 (2.5) / Julien and Althaus 9 China and overseas 18 January 2020 Stochastic simulations of early outbreak trajectories Stochastic simulations of early outbreak trajectories were performed that are consistent with the epidemiological findings to date 2.2 Tang et al. 10 China 22 January 2020 Mathematical SEIR-type epidemiological model incorporates appropriate compartments corresponding to interventions Method-based method and Likelihood-based method 6.47 5.71–7.23 Qun Li et al. 11 China 22 January 2020 Statistical exponential growth model Mean incubation period = 5.2 days, mean serial interval = 7.5 days 2.2 1.4–3.9 Averaged 3.28 CI, Confidence interval. Figure 1 Timeline of the R 0 estimates for the 2019-nCoV virus in China The first studies initially reported estimates of R 0 with lower values. Estimations subsequently increased and then again returned in the most recent estimates to the levels initially reported (Figure 1). A closer look reveals that the estimation method used played a role. The two studies using stochastic methods to estimate R 0, reported a range of 2.2–2.68 with an average of 2.44. 1 , 9 The six studies using mathematical methods to estimate R 0 produced a range from 1.5 to 6.49, with an average of 4.2. 2 , 4–6 , 8 , 10 The three studies using statistical methods such as exponential growth estimated an R 0 ranging from 2.2 to 3.58, with an average of 2.67. 3 , 7 , 11 Discussion Our review found the average R 0 to be 3.28 and median to be 2.79, which exceed WHO estimates from 1.4 to 2.5. The studies using stochastic and statistical methods for deriving R 0 provide estimates that are reasonably comparable. However, the studies using mathematical methods produce estimates that are, on average, higher. Some of the mathematically derived estimates fall within the range produced the statistical and stochastic estimates. It is important to further assess the reason for the higher R 0 values estimated by some the mathematical studies. For example, modelling assumptions may have played a role. In more recent studies, R 0 seems to have stabilized at around 2–3. R 0 estimations produced at later stages can be expected to be more reliable, as they build upon more case data and include the effect of awareness and intervention. It is worthy to note that the WHO point estimates are consistently below all published estimates, although the higher end of the WHO range includes the lower end of the estimates reviewed here. R 0 estimates for SARS have been reported to range between 2 and 5, which is within the range of the mean R 0 for COVID-19 found in this review. Due to similarities of both pathogen and region of exposure, this is expected. On the other hand, despite the heightened public awareness and impressively strong interventional response, the COVID-19 is already more widespread than SARS, indicating it may be more transmissible. Conclusions This review found that the estimated mean R 0 for COVID-19 is around 3.28, with a median of 2.79 and IQR of 1.16, which is considerably higher than the WHO estimate at 1.95. These estimates of R 0 depend on the estimation method used as well as the validity of the underlying assumptions. Due to insufficient data and short onset time, current estimates of R 0 for COVID-19 are possibly biased. However, as more data are accumulated, estimation error can be expected to decrease and a clearer picture should form. Based on these considerations, R 0 for COVID-19 is expected to be around 2–3, which is broadly consistent with the WHO estimate. Author contributions J.R. and A.W.S. had the idea, and Y.L. did the literature search and created the table and figure. Y.L. and A.W.S. wrote the first draft; A.A.G. drafted the final manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript. Conflict of interest None declared.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                14 October 2020
                2020
                14 October 2020
                : 11
                : 586524
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Unit of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Evaluation (UOPEV), Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli , Brescia, Italy
                [2] 2School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca , Milan, Italy
                [3] 3Head of the Acute Geriatric Unit, San Gerardo Hospital , Monza, Italy
                [4] 4Department of Medicine and Rehabilitation, S. Anna Hospital , Brescia, Italy
                [5] 5Department of Mental Health and Addiction, Local Health Authority of Modena , Modena, Italy
                [6] 6Operative Unit (UO) Alzheimer-Memory Clinic, Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli , Brescia, Italy
                [7] 7Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento , Trento, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Katie Palmer, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy

                Reviewed by: Nerisa Banaj, Santa Lucia Foundation (IRCCS), Italy; Luca Cravello, ASST Rhodense, Italy

                *Correspondence: Giovanni de Girolamo gdegirolamo@ 123456fatebenefratelli.eu

                This article was submitted to Aging Psychiatry, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2020.586524
                7591767
                33173526
                bb3f4665-5929-4d46-a66d-d8bc894cb9eb
                Copyright © 2020 de Girolamo, Bellelli, Bianchetti, Starace, Zanetti, Zarbo and Micciolo.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 23 July 2020
                : 09 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 29, Pages: 7, Words: 5314
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                long-term care facilities,older people,mortality rate,covid-19,risk factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article