Search

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), originally relied mainly on nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples collected by healthcare workers (HCWs). However, [...]

Self-collected specimens can expand access to SARS-CoV-2 testing. At a large inner-city hospital 1,082 participants self-collected saliva and anterior nasal swab (ANS) samples before healthcare workers collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples on the same day. To characterize patient preferences for self-collection, this investigation explored ability, comfort, and ease of ANS and saliva self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing along with associated patient characteristics, including medical history and symptoms of COVID-19. With nearly all participants successfully submitting a specimen, favorable ratings from most participants (at least >79% in ease and comfort), and equivocal preference between saliva and ANS, self-collection is a viable SARS-CoV-2 testing option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing remains essential for early identification and clinical management of cases. We compared the diagnostic performance of 3 specimen types for characterizing SARS-CoV-2 in infected nursing home residents. Methods A convenience sample of 17 residents were enrolled within 15 days of first positive SARS-CoV-2 result by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and prospectively followed for 42 days. Anterior nasal swabs (AN), oropharyngeal swabs (OP), and saliva specimens (SA) were collected on the day of enrollment, every 3 days for the first 21 days, and then weekly for 21 days. Specimens were tested for presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR and replication-competent virus by viral culture. Results Comparing the 3 specimen types collected from each participant at each time point, the concordance of paired RT-PCR results ranged from 80% to 88%. After the first positive result, SA and OP were RT-PCR-positive for ≤48 days; AN were RT-PCR–positive for ≤33 days. AN had the highest percentage of RT-PCR–positive results (21/26 [81%]) when collected ≤10 days of participants' first positive result. Eleven specimens were positive by viral culture: 9 AN collected ≤19 days following first positive result and 2 OP collected ≤5 days following first positive result. Conclusions AN, OP, and SA were effective methods for repeated testing in this population. More AN than OP were positive by viral culture. SA and OP remained RT-PCR-positive longer than AN, which could lead to unnecessary interventions if RT-PCR detection occurred after viral shedding has likely ceased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to describe frequency of COVID-19 exposure risk factors among patients presenting for medical care at an urban, public hospital serving mostly uninsured/Medicare/Medicaid clients and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consenting, adult patients seeking care at a public hospital from August to November 2020 were enrolled in this cross-sectional investigation. Saliva, anterior nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. Participant demographics, close contact, and activities ≤14 days prior to enrollment were collected through interview. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 1,078 participants, 51.8% were male, 57.0% were aged ≥50 years, 81.3% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7.6% had positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. Only 2.7% reported COVID-19 close contact ≤14 days before enrollment; this group had 6.79 adjusted odds of testing positive (95%CI = 2.78-16.62) than those without a reported exposure. Among participants who did not report COVID-19 close contact, working in proximity to ≥10 people (adjusted OR = 2.17; 95%CI = 1.03-4.55), choir practice (adjusted OR = 11.85; 95%CI = 1.44-97.91), traveling on a plane (adjusted OR = 5.78; 95%CI = 1.70-19.68), and not participating in an essential indoor activity (i.e., grocery shopping, public transit use, or visiting a healthcare facility; adjusted OR = 2.15; 95%CI = 1.07-4.30) were associated with increased odds of testing positive. Among this population of mostly Black, non-Hispanic participants seeking care at a public hospital, we found several activities associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in addition to close contact with a case. Understanding high-risk activities for SARS-CoV-2 infection among different communities is important for issuing awareness and prevention strategies., Competing Interests: YW, PR, VK, AH, and MS received funding for this study from the CDC Foundation. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Smith-Jeffcoat, Sleweon, Koh, Khalil, Schechter, Rebolledo, Kasinathan, Hoffman, Rossetti, Shragai, O'Laughlin, Espinosa, Bankamp, Bowen, Paulick, Gargis, Folster, da Silva, Biedron, Stewart, Wang, Kirking, Tate and CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response GA-10 Field.)

Background: The natural history and clinical progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections can be better understood using combined serological and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing., Methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs and serum were collected at a single time-point from patients at an urban, public hospital during August-November 2020 and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR, viral culture, and anti-spike pan-immunoglobulin antibody testing. Participant demographics and symptoms were collected through interview. The χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to identify associations between RT-PCR and serology results with presence of viable virus and frequency of symptoms., Results: Among 592 participants, 129 (21.8%) had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR or serology. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was strongly associated with lack of viable virus (P = .016). COVID-19 symptom frequency was similar for patients testing RT-PCR positive/seronegative and patients testing RT-PCR positive/seropositive. Patients testing RT-PCR positive/seronegative reported headaches, fatigue, diarrhea, and vomiting at rates not statistically significantly different from those testing RT-PCR negative/seropositive., Conclusions: While patients testing SARS-CoV-2 seropositive were unlikely to test positive for viable virus and were therefore at low risk for forward transmission, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms were common. Paired SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antibody testing provides more nuanced understanding of patients' COVID-19 status., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Kayla Donohue reports full-time employment at United Way of Northwest Vermont with temporary assignment to COVID-19 response at the Vermont Department of Health, which supported her work related to this publication. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are focal points of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among SNF residents and health care personnel have been described (1-3). Repeated point prevalence surveys (serial testing of all residents and health care personnel at a health care facility irrespective of symptoms) have been used to identify asymptomatic infections and have reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission during SNF outbreaks (1,3). During March 2020, the Detroit Health Department and area hospitals detected a sharp increase in COVID-19 diagnoses, hospitalizations, and associated deaths among SNF residents. The Detroit Health Department collaborated with local government, academic, and health care system partners and a CDC field team to rapidly expand SARS-CoV-2 testing and implement infection prevention and control (IPC) activities in all Detroit-area SNFs. During March 7-May 8, among 2,773 residents of 26 Detroit SNFs, 1,207 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 were identified during three periods: before (March 7-April 7) and after two point prevalence surveys (April 8-25 and April 30-May 8): the overall attack rate was 44%. Within 21 days of receiving their first positive test results, 446 (37%) of 1,207 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized, and 287 (24%) died. Among facilities participating in both surveys (n = 12), the percentage of positive test results declined from 35% to 18%. Repeated point prevalence surveys in SNFs identified asymptomatic COVID-19 cases, informed cohorting and IPC practices aimed at reducing transmission, and guided prioritization of health department resources for facilities experiencing high levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. With the increased availability of SARS-CoV-2 testing, repeated point prevalence surveys and enhanced and expanded IPC support should be standard tools for interrupting and preventing COVID-19 outbreaks in SNFs., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. John Zervos and Tyler Prentiss report grants from the United Way of Southeastern Michigan, Vattikuti Foundation, and Abbott Laboratories during the conduct of the study. Marcus J. Zervos reports grants from Pfizer, Merck, and Serono, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) in health care facilities is essential to protecting patients, visitors, and health care personnel from the spread of infectious diseases, including Ebola virus disease (Ebola). Patients with suspected Ebola are typically referred to specialized Ebola treatment units (ETUs), which have strict isolation and IPC protocols, for testing and treatment (1,2). However, in settings where contact tracing is inadequate, Ebola patients might first seek care at general health care facilities, which often have insufficient IPC capacity (3-6). Before 2014-2016, most Ebola outbreaks occurred in rural or nonurban communities, and the role of health care facilities as amplification points, while recognized, was limited (7,8). In contrast to these earlier outbreaks, the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak occurred in densely populated urban areas where access to health care facilities was better, but contact tracing was generally inadequate (8). Patients with unrecognized Ebola who sought care at health care facilities with inadequate IPC initiated multiple chains of transmission, which amplified the epidemic to an extent not seen in previous Ebola outbreaks (3-5,7). Implementation of robust IPC practices in general health care facilities was critical to ending health care-associated transmission (8). In August 2018, when an Ebola outbreak was recognized in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), neighboring countries began preparing for possible introduction of Ebola, with a focus on IPC. Baseline IPC assessments conducted in frontline health care facilities in high-risk districts in Uganda found IPC gaps in screening, isolation, and notification. Based on findings, additional funds were provided for IPC, a training curriculum was developed, and other corrective actions were taken. Ebola preparedness efforts should include activities to ensure that frontline health care facilities have the IPC capacity to rapidly identify suspected Ebola cases and refer such patients for treatment to protect patients, staff members, and visitors., 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.