On January 13, 2021, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case and electronic laboratory data reported to CDC were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, underlying health conditions, and clinical outcomes, as well as trends in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 incidence and testing volume among U.S. children, adolescents, and young adults (persons aged 0-24 years). This analysis provides a critical update and expansion of previously published data, to include trends after fall school reopenings, and adds preschool-aged children (0-4 years) and college-aged young adults (18-24 years) (1). Among children, adolescents, and young adults, weekly incidence (cases per 100,000 persons) increased with age and was highest during the final week of the review period (the week of December 6) among all age groups. Time trends in weekly reported incidence for children and adolescents aged 0-17 years tracked consistently with trends observed among adults since June, with both incidence and positive test results tending to increase since September after summer declines. Reported incidence and positive test results among children aged 0-10 years were consistently lower than those in older age groups. To reduce community transmission, which will support schools in operating more safely for in-person learning, communities and schools should fully implement and strictly adhere to recommended mitigation strategies, especially universal and proper masking, to reduce COVID-19 incidence.Children, adolescents, and young adults were stratified into five age groups: 0-4, 5-10, 11-13, 14-17, and 18-24 years to align with educational groupings (i.e., pre-, elementary, middle, and high schools, and institutions of higher education), and trends in these groups were compared with those in adults aged ≥25 years. Confirmed COVID-19 cases, defined as positive real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were identified from individual-level case reports submitted by state and territorial health departments during March 1-December 12, 2020.* COVID-19 case data for all confirmed cases were analyzed to * CDC official counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths, released daily at https:// www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, are aggregate counts from reporting jurisdictions. Individual-level case report data were available for approximately 75% of the aggregate number of confirmed cases. Cases reported without sex or age data and in persons repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, or the Diamond Princess cruise ship were excluded from this analysis.

Context Uncontrolled hypertension remains a widely prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in the U.S. team-based care, established by adding new staff or changing the roles of existing staff such as nurses and pharmacists to work with a primary care provider and the patient. Team-based care has the potential to improve the quality of hypertension management. The goal of this Community Guide systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure (BP) outcomes. Evidence acquisition An existing systematic review (search period, January 1980–July 2003) assessing team-based care for BP control was supplemented with a Community Guide update (January 2003–May 2012). For the Community Guide update, two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality of eligible studies. Evidence synthesis Twenty-eight studies in the prior review (1980–2003) and an additional 52 studies from the Community Guide update (2003–2012) qualified for inclusion. Results from both bodies of evidence suggest that team-based care is effective in improving BP outcomes. From the update, the proportion of patients with controlled BP improved (median increase=12 percentage points); systolic BP decreased (median reduction=5.4 mmHg); and diastolic BP also decreased (median reduction=1.8 mmHg). Conclusions Team-based care increased the proportion of people with controlled BP and reduced both systolic and diastolic BP, especially when pharmacists and nurses were part of the team. Findings are applicable to a range of U.S. settings and population groups. Implementation of this multidisciplinary approach will require health system–level organizational changes and could be an important element of the medical home.

OBJECTIVE To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985–2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001–$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001–$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985–2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8–10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared with no statin therapy for individuals with T2D and history of cardiovascular disease, 4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ≥50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

OBJECTIVE We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) among high-risk individuals and whole populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Interventions targeting high-risk individuals are those that identify people at high risk of developing T2D and then treat them with either lifestyle or metformin interventions. Population-based prevention strategies are those that focus on the whole population regardless of the level of risk, creating public health impact through policy implementation, campaigns, and other environmental strategies. We systematically searched seven electronic databases for studies published in English between 2008 and 2017. We grouped lifestyle interventions targeting high-risk individuals by delivery method and personnel type. We used the median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or cost saved to measure the CE of interventions. We used the $50,000/QALY threshold to determine whether an intervention was cost-effective or not. ICERs are reported in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Our review included 39 studies: 28 on interventions targeting high-risk individuals and 11 targeting whole populations. Both lifestyle and metformin interventions in high-risk individuals were cost-effective from a health care system or a societal perspective, with median ICERs of $12,510/QALY and $17,089/QALY, respectively, compared with no intervention. Among lifestyle interventions, those that followed a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) curriculum had a median ICER of $6,212/QALY, while those that did not follow a DPP curriculum had a median ICER of $13,228/QALY. Compared with lifestyle interventions delivered one-on-one or by a health professional, those offered in a group setting or provided by a combination of health professionals and lay health workers had lower ICERs. Among population-based interventions, taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was cost-saving from both the health care system and governmental perspectives. Evaluations of other population-based interventions—including fruit and vegetable subsidies, community-based education programs, and modifications to the built environment—showed inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS Most of the T2D prevention interventions included in our review were found to be either cost-effective or cost-saving. Our findings may help decision makers set priorities and allocate resources for T2D prevention in real-world settings.

Objective This review evaluates costs and benefits associated with acquiring, implementing, and operating clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Materials and Methods Methods developed for The Community Guide were used to review CDSS literature covering the period from January 1976 to October 2015. Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion. Results It was difficult to draw a meaningful estimate for the cost of acquiring and operating CDSS to prevent CVD from the available studies (n=12) due to considerable heterogeneity. Several studies (n=11) indicated healthcare costs were averted by using CDSS but many were partial assessments that did not consider all components of healthcare. Four cost-benefit studies reached conflicting conclusions about the net benefit of CDSS based on incomplete assessments of costs and benefits. Three cost-utility studies indicated inconsistent conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness based on a conservative $50,000 threshold. Discussion Intervention costs were not negligible but specific estimates were not derived because of the heterogeneity of implementation and reporting metrics. Expected economic benefits from averted healthcare cost could not be determined with confidence because many studies did not fully account for all components of healthcare. Conclusion We were unable to conclude whether CDSS for CVD prevention is either cost-beneficial or cost effective. Several evidence gaps are identified, most prominently the lack of information about major drivers of cost and benefit; the lack of standard metrics for the cost of CDSS; and not allowing for useful life of CDSS that generally extends beyond one accounting period.