Search

Background: A significant challenge of the COVID-19 epidemic was the dissemination of accurate and timely information to the public, health care providers, and first responders. We describe the expansion of the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center (APDIC) to fill such a need for residents of Arizona. Methodology: The original mission of the APDIC was recognition and management of chemical exposure, poisoning, envenomation, and drug-related medical problems. In response to COVID-19, APDIC expanded its personnel and facilities to accommodate telephone calls and teleconsults regarding COVID-19. Thirteen different topics dealing with COVID-19 were addressed and tracked and included: testing information, isolation, prevention, personal protective equipment, travel, vaccines, therapies, antibody testing, contact tracing, exposure to the virus and what to do in businesses, at work or at school regarding isolation and quarantine. Results: Responding to the public health needs, APDIC accepted >320,000 telephone calls and completed 48,346 teleconsults from March 3, 2020 to March 3, 2021. This represented a 15-fold increase in calls and twice the number of consults over 2019. Upon release of the vaccine, calls increased sharply with >7,000 calls in 1 day (February 7, 2021). Conclusion: In conclusion, the APDIC, rapidly expanded to address urgent public health information needs surrounding COVID-19 while still accomplishing its founding mission.

Background: Adult residents of skilled nursing facilities (SNF) have experienced high morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease. Use of monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment improves clinical outcomes among high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, but information on mAb effectiveness in SNF residents with COVID-19 is limited. We assessed outcomes in SNF residents with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 associated with an outbreak in Arizona during January-February 2021 that did and did not receive a mAb., Methods: Medical records were reviewed to describe the effect of bamlanivimab therapy on COVID-19 mortality. Secondary outcomes included referral to an acute care setting and escalation of medical therapies at the SNF (e.g., new oxygen requirements). Residents treated with bamlanivimab were compared to residents who were eligible for treatment under the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) but were not treated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine association between outcomes and treatment status., Results: Seventy-five residents identified with COVID-19 during this outbreak met eligibility for mAb treatment, of whom 56 received bamlanivimab. Treated and untreated groups were similar in age and comorbidities associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with reduced 21-day mortality (adjusted OR = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.39) and lower odds of initiating oxygen therapy (adjusted OR = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.34). Referrals to acute care were not significantly different between treated and untreated residents., Conclusions: mAb therapy was successfully administered to SNF residents with COVID-19 in a large outbreak setting. Treatment with bamlanivimab reduced 21-day mortality and reduced initiation of oxygen therapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and newer immunotherapies gain FDA authorization, more studies of the effectiveness of mAb therapies for treating emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in high-risk congregate settings are needed., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease, or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During 3 to 17 November 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status, and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here, we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8 to 10 days postexposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 h for BinaxNOW and 26 h for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turnaround time than laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shares common clinicopathologic features with other severe pulmonary illnesses. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome was diagnosed in 2 patients in Arizona, USA, suspected of dying from infection with SARS-CoV-2. Differential diagnoses and possible co-infections should be considered for cases of respiratory distress during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Rapid antigen tests, such as the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), offer results more rapidly (approximately 15-30 minutes) and at a lower cost than do highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (1). Rapid antigen tests have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in symptomatic persons (2), but data are lacking on test performance in asymptomatic persons to inform expanded screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons (3). To evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, it was used along with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to analyze 3,419 paired specimens collected from persons aged ≥10 years at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona, during November 3-17, 2020. Viral culture was performed on 274 of 303 residual real-time RT-PCR specimens with positive results by either test (29 were not available for culture). Compared with real-time RT-PCR testing, the BinaxNOW antigen test had a sensitivity of 64.2% for specimens from symptomatic persons and 35.8% for specimens from asymptomatic persons, with near 100% specificity in specimens from both groups. Virus was cultured from 96 of 274 (35.0%) specimens, including 85 (57.8%) of 147 with concordant antigen and real-time RT-PCR positive results, 11 (8.9%) of 124 with false-negative antigen test results, and none of three with false-positive antigen test results. Among specimens positive for viral culture, sensitivity was 92.6% for symptomatic and 78.6% for asymptomatic individuals. When the pretest probability for receiving positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 is elevated (e.g., in symptomatic persons or in persons with a known COVID-19 exposure), a negative antigen test result should be confirmed by NAAT (1). Despite a lower sensitivity to detect infection, rapid antigen tests can be an important tool for screening because of their quick turnaround time, lower costs and resource needs, high specificity, and high positive predictive value (PPV) in settings of high pretest probability. The faster turnaround time of the antigen test can help limit transmission by more rapidly identifying infectious persons for isolation, particularly when used as a component of serial testing strategies., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons experienced disproportionate mortality during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic (1,2). Concerns of a similar trend during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the formation of a workgroup* to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 deaths in the AI/AN population. As of December 2, 2020, CDC has reported 2,689 COVID-19-associated deaths among non-Hispanic AI/AN persons in the United States. † A recent analysis found that the cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among AI/AN persons was 3.5 times that among White persons (3). Among 14 participating states, the age-adjusted AI/AN COVID-19 mortality rate (55.8 deaths per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 52.5-59.3) was 1.8 (95% CI = 1.7-2.0) times that among White persons (30.3 deaths per 100,000; 95% CI = 29.9-30.7). Although COVID-19 mortality rates increased with age among both AI/AN and White persons, the disparity was largest among those aged 20-49 years. Among persons aged 20-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years, the COVID-19 mortality rates among AI/AN were 10.5, 11.6, and 8.2 times, respectively, those among White persons. Evidence that AI/AN communities might be at increased risk for COVID-19 illness and death demonstrates the importance of documenting and understanding the reasons for these disparities while developing collaborative approaches with federal, state, municipal, and tribal agencies to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on AI/AN communities. Together, public health partners can plan for medical countermeasures and prevention activities for AI/AN communities., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.