Search

To determine the epidemiology of human parainfluenza virus in homeless shelters during the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed data and sequences from respiratory specimens collected in 23 shelters in Washington, USA, during 2019-2021. Two clusters in children were genetically similar by shelter of origin. Shelter-specific interventions are needed to reduce these infections.

Background Rhinovirus (RV) is a common cause of respiratory illness in all people, including those experiencing homelessness. RV epidemiology in homeless shelters is unknown. Methods We analyzed data from a cross-sectional homeless shelter study in King County, Washington, October 2019–May 2021. Shelter residents or guardians aged ≥3 months reporting acute respiratory illness completed questionnaires and submitted nasal swabs. After 1 April 2020, enrollment expanded to residents and staff regardless of symptoms. Samples were tested by multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. A subset of RV-positive samples was sequenced. Results There were 1066 RV-positive samples with RV present every month of the study period. RV was the most common virus before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (43% and 77% of virus-positive samples, respectively). Participants from family shelters had the highest prevalence of RV. Among 131 sequenced samples, 33 RV serotypes were identified with each serotype detected for ≤4 months. Conclusions RV infections persisted through community mitigation measures and were most prevalent in shelters housing families. Sequencing showed a diversity of circulating RV serotypes, each detected over short periods of time. Community-based surveillance in congregate settings is important to characterize respiratory viral infections during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04141917.

Rapid molecular diagnostic tests have been critical in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to evaluate the ability of these assays to identify variants of concern, particularly across varying collection and storage conditions. Nasal swabs positive for Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.167.2), Gamma (P.1), or Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants of concern (VOCs) were stored in TE buffer and viral transport media (VTM). We evaluated the sensitivity of the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay in detecting VOC samples and validated TE buffer for use with the assay. Testing of known VOC positives revealed no substantial reduction of PCR sensitivity. Comparison of TE and VTM samples also revealed no reduction in performance when using TE buffer, validating the use of TE buffer to store SARS-CoV-2 samples. SARS-CoV-2 VOCs collected and stored across various conditions can be detected by the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay.

This new workflow enables co-extraction of HIV and SARS-CoV2 RNAs from clinical pooled plasma/nasal secretion samples that allows sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV infections in the patients-living with HIV.

Persons experiencing homelessness face increased risk of influenza as overcrowding in congregate shelters can facilitate influenza virus spread. Data regarding on-site influenza testing and antiviral treatment within homeless shelters remain limited.We conducted a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge trial of point-of-care molecular influenza testing coupled with antiviral treatment with baloxavir or oseltamivir in residents of 14 homeless shelters in Seattle, WA, USA. Residents ≥3 months with cough or ≥2 acute respiratory illness (ARI) symptoms and onset7 days were eligible. In control periods, mid-nasal swabs were tested for influenza by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The intervention period included on-site rapid molecular influenza testing and antiviral treatment for influenza-positives if symptom onset was48 h. The primary endpoint was monthly influenza virus infections in the control versus intervention periods. Influenza whole genome sequencing was performed to assess transmission and antiviral resistance.During 11/15/2019-4/30/2020 and 11/2/2020-4/30/2021, 1283 ARI encounters from 668 participants were observed. Influenza virus was detected in 51 (4%) specimens using RT-PCR (A = 14; B = 37); 21 influenza virus infections were detected from 269 (8%) intervention-eligible encounters by rapid molecular testing and received antiviral treatment. Thirty-seven percent of ARI-participant encounters reported symptom onset 48 h. The intervention had no effect on influenza virus transmission (adjusted relative risk 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-6.00). Of 23 influenza genomes, 86% of A(H1N1)pdm09 and 81% of B/Victoria sequences were closely related.Our findings suggest feasibility of influenza test-and-treat strategies in shelters. Additional studies would help discern an intervention effect during periods of increased influenza activity.

Background: Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was important to better understand transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Household contacts of infected individuals are particularly at risk for infection, but delays in contact tracing, delays in testing contacts, and isolation and quarantine pose challenges to accurately capturing secondary household cases. Methods: In this study, 346 households in the Seattle region were provided with respiratory specimen collection kits and remotely monitored using web-based surveys for respiratory illness symptoms weekly between October 1, 2020, and June 20, 2021. Symptomatic participants collected respiratory specimens at symptom onset and mailed specimens to the central laboratory in Seattle. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR with whole genome sequencing attempted when positive. SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals were notified, and their household contacts submitted specimens every two days for fourteen days. Results: In total, 1,371 participants collected 2,029 specimens that were tested; 16 individuals (1.2%) within 6 households tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. Full genome sequences were generated from 11 individuals within 4 households. Very little genetic variation was found among SARS-CoV-2 viruses sequenced from different individuals in the same household, supporting transmission within the household. Conclusions: This study indicates web-based surveillance of respiratory symptoms, combined with rapid and longitudinal specimen collection and remote contact tracing, provides a viable strategy to monitor households and detect household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Trial Registration Identifier: NCT04141930

ImportanceFew US studies have reexamined risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the context of widespread vaccination and new variants or considered risk factors for cocirculating endemic viruses, such as rhinovirus.ObjectivesTo evaluate how risk factors and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity changed over the course of the pandemic and to compare these with the risk factors associated with rhinovirus test positivity.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis case-control study used a test-negative design with multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus test positivity and self-reported demographic and symptom variables over a 25-month period. The study was conducted among symptomatic individuals of all ages enrolled in a cross-sectional community surveillance study in King County, Washington, from June 2020 to July 2022.ExposuresSelf-reported data for 15 demographic and health behavior variables and 16 symptoms.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or rhinovirus infection.ResultsAnalyses included data from 23 498 individuals. The median (IQR) age of participants was 34.33 (22.42-45.08) years, 13 878 (59.06%) were female, 4018 (17.10%) identified as Asian, 654 (2.78%) identified as Black, and 2193 (9.33%) identified as Hispanic. Close contact with an individual with SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.89; 95% CI, 3.34-4.57) and loss of smell or taste (aOR, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.77-4.41) were the variables most associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, but both attenuated during the Omicron period. Contact with a vaccinated individual with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.79) was associated with lower odds of testing positive than contact with an unvaccinated individual with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.39-7.23). Sore throat was associated with Omicron infection (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.68-3.20) but not Delta infection. Vaccine effectiveness for participants fully vaccinated with a booster dose was 93% (95% CI, 73%-100%) for Delta, but not significant for Omicron. Variables associated with rhinovirus test positivity included being younger than 12 years (aOR, 3.92; 95% CI, 3.42-4.51) and experiencing a runny or stuffy nose (aOR, 4.58; 95% CI, 4.07-5.21). Black race, residing in south King County, and households with 5 or more people were significantly associated with both SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus test positivity.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this case-control study of 23 498 symptomatic individuals, estimated risk factors and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection changed over time. There was a shift in reported symptoms between the Delta and Omicron variants as well as reductions in the protection provided by vaccines. Racial and sociodemographic disparities persisted in the third year of SARS-CoV-2 circulation and were also present in rhinovirus infection. Trends in testing behavior and availability may influence these results.

Background The need for community surveillance of respiratory viruses in high-risk settings such as homeless shelters has been underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we show that sampling high-touch surfaces is a low-cost, minimally intensive means of community respiratory virus surveillance. Methods Environmental samples were collected weekly from adult and family homeless shelters in King County, WA from November 2019 – April 2020. At times when residents were present, a 10cm2 area of selected high-touch surfaces were swabbed and bioaerosol samples were collected in high-traffic areas. Surfaces included entrance and restroom doorknobs, counters, and surfaces unique to each shelter. Study staff collected mid-turbinate swabs from shelter resident participants aged > 3 months with symptoms of acute respiratory illness (ARI). All samples were tested by RT-PCR for 27 viruses. From January 1, 2020 onward, samples were also tested for SARS-CoV-2. Results A total of 788 environmental swabs, 1509 nasal swabs, and 98 bioaerosol samples from 6 adult and 3 family shelters were tested. Adenovirus (109 positive swabs, 13.8% of tested swabs), rhinovirus (107, 13.6%) and human bocavirus (62, 7.9%) were the most frequently detected viruses in surface swabs. Rhinovirus (160, 10.6%), human coronaviruses (79, 5.24%) and influenza B (43, 2.85%) were the most detected in nasal swabs. All viruses detected in nasal swabs were found in surface swabs. Of 9 surfaces, exterior bathroom doorknobs were the physical location with the highest number of pathogens detected. SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in surface swabs on 3/20/20, and in nasal swabs on 3/10/20. Bioaerosol samples detected virus in a low percentage of samples relative to surface and nasal swabs. Table 1Count and period prevalence of environmental viral detection by shelter type, November 18, 2019 - April 10, 2020.Figure 1Number of viral pathogens detected from environmental swabs, disaggregated by shelter type.Figure 2Bar graphs comparing prevalence of respiratory pathogen detection in mid-turbinate nasal swabs and environmental swabs/bioaerosol samples by epidemiologic week, November 18, 2019 - April 30, 2020. Conclusion Respiratory viruses detected through environmental sampling in homeless shelters were similar to the viruses detected from ARI episodes in study participants. Environmental surface sampling presents a plausible, minimally invasive method of surveillance for both endemic and emerging respiratory pathogens, as evidenced by the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during the early stages of the pandemic. Further research could focus on sampling public locations for broader community surveillance and culturing viruses found on these surfaces. Disclosures Michael J. Boeckh, MD PhD, Allovir: Advisor/Consultant|Amazon: Grant/Research Support|Ansun Biopharma: Grant/Research Support|EvrysBio: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Advisor/Consultant|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Helocyte: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|Kyorin Pharmaceuticals: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|ReViral: Advisor/Consultant|Symbio: Advisor/Consultant|Takeda: Grant/Research Support|Vir Biotechnology: Advisor/Consultant|Vir Biotechnology: Grant/Research Support Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Meissa Vaccines: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Advisor/Consultant Helen Y. Chu, MD, MPH, Cepheid: Reagents|Ellume: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant.

Background Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on university campuses is critical for informed public health measures and understanding transmission dynamics. Figure 1.Dropbox and Kiosk Samples Collected September 10, 2021 to April 23, 2022. Methods Faculty, staff, and students at a major public university in Seattle, WA, USA were enrolled in a COVID-19 testing study. Individuals could test using observed self-swabs at on-campus kiosks or unobserved self-swabs using a kit and returning it to a dropbox on campus. Sample collection volume for observed self-swabs was limited by staffing and space. All samples were returned to the laboratory and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by qRT-PCR. Results From September 10, 2021 to April 23, 2022, 38,400 individuals were enrolled in the study. Of these individuals, 5,089 used dropboxes only, 14,421 used kiosks only, and 5,820 used both. A total of 21,653 dropbox swabs and 75,493 observed self-swabs were collected. Median age was similar between individuals using dropboxes and observed self-swabs (20 vs. 22 years). A greater proportion of dropbox users were students compared to faculty and staff (students made up 83% of dropbox only population, 75% of kiosk only, and 86% of both, χ² p-value< 0.0001). Symptom data was reported for 65,349 swabs. Dropbox users were less likely to have symptoms compared to observed self-swab users (24% of swabs vs. 54%, χ² p-value< 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 positivity was slightly lower for dropboxes compared to kiosks (4% vs. 5%; p=0.001). Dropboxes were highly utilized during periods of increased testing demand, including after academic breaks and variant emergence (Figure 1). Of the total tests distributed for use, a greater proportion of dropbox kits were unable to be resulted (6%) compared to observed self-swab kits (0.02%). Conclusion Dropboxes provided a flexible, high-volume collection method at times of increased testing demand. Individuals who used dropboxes were less likely to report symptoms and slightly less likely to test positive, suggesting a role for dropbox utilization in high-risk asymptomatic individuals during periods of high community transmission on a university campus. Disclosures Geoffrey S. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, Abbott Molecular Diagnostics: Grant/Research Support|Alere Technologies: Grant/Research Support|BMGF: Grant/Research Support|BMS: Grant/Research Support|Cerus Corp.: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Janssen Pharmaceutica: Grant/Research Support|Merck & Co: Grant/Research Support|Roche Molecular Systems: Grant/Research Support|THERA Technologies/TaiMed Biologics: Grant/Research Support|ViiV Healthcare: Grant/Research Support Helen Y. Chu, MD, MPH, Cepheid: Reagents|Ellume: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant.

Background Human parainfluenza viruses (HPIV) cause respiratory illness in individuals of all ages. However, HPIV epidemiology data in people experiencing homelessness (PEH) are limited. Methods We analyzed cross-sectional data from a clinical trial and SARS-CoV-2 surveillance study in 23 homeless shelters in King County, Washington from October 2019-May 2021. Questionnaires and nasal swab specimens were obtained from eligible participants at enrollment. Between October 2019-March 31, 2020, participants included those aged > 3 months with acute respiratory illness. Monthly shelter surveillance was also conducted where participants were recruited regardless of symptoms. With the community spread of SARS-CoV-2, the study design transitioned from a clinical trial to a SARS-CoV-2 surveillance study which expanded enrollment eligibility to include participants with or without symptoms from April 1, 2020, onward. Participants were not followed longitudinally but were permitted to enroll multiple times during the study period. Specimens were tested for HPIV 1-4 and other respiratory viruses using RT-PCR. Results Among 14,464 specimens, 32 were HPIV-positive from 29 participants (median age 9 years, range 0.3-64 years; 45% female; 28% Black; 10% with chronic conditions) of which 59% were children. Family shelters had the highest percentage of HPIV infections (Table). HPIV was detected every month before the community spread of SARS-CoV-2. All HPIV-positive samples in May 2021 came from a single family shelter (Figure). Only 67% of HPIV-positive participants had symptoms with runny nose, cough and sore throat the most commonly reported. HPIV co-detection with other respiratory viruses occurred in 19% of HPIV-positive specimens; Rhinovirus co-detection (16%) was the most common. Human Parainfluenza Encounters by Shelter Type Before and After April 1, 2020 Human Parainfluenza Positive Samples by Shelter Type Among Unique Participants Conclusion HPIV affected PEH of all ages with most cases in shelters with children. Coinciding with community-wide SARS-CoV-2 mitigation efforts, the number of HPIV infections were reduced. However, a cluster of HPIV infections still occurred within one family shelter. Shelter-specific public health measures including non-pharmaceutical interventions used during the COVID-19 pandemic may reduce HPIV infections among residents. Disclosures Janet A. Englund, MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Meissa Vaccines: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Advisor/Consultant Helen Y. Chu, MD, MPH, Cepheid: Reagents|Ellume: Advisor/Consultant|Gates Ventures: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant.

Background The urgent need for massively scaled clinical testing for SARS-CoV-2, along with global shortages of critical reagents and supplies, has necessitated development of streamlined laboratory testing protocols. Conventional nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 involves collection of a clinical specimen with a nasopharyngeal swab in transport medium, nucleic acid extraction, and quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (RT–qPCR). As testing has scaled across the world, the global supply chain has buckled, rendering testing reagents and materials scarce. To address shortages, we developed SwabExpress, an end-to-end protocol developed to employ mass produced anterior nares swabs and bypass the requirement for transport media and nucleic acid extraction. Methods We evaluated anterior nares swabs, transported dry and eluted in low-TE buffer as a direct-to-RT–qPCR alternative to extraction-dependent viral transport media. We validated our protocol of using heat treatment for viral inactivation and added a proteinase K digestion step to reduce amplification interference. We tested this protocol across archived and prospectively collected swab specimens to fine-tune test performance. Results After optimization, SwabExpress has a low limit of detection at 2–4 molecules/µL, 100% sensitivity, and 99.4% specificity when compared side by side with a traditional RT–qPCR protocol employing extraction. On real-world specimens, SwabExpress outperforms an automated extraction system while simultaneously reducing cost and hands-on time. Conclusion SwabExpress is a simplified workflow that facilitates scaled testing for COVID-19 without sacrificing test performance. It may serve as a template for the simplification of PCR-based clinical laboratory tests, particularly in times of critical shortages during pandemics.

ImportanceFew US studies have reexamined risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the context of widespread vaccination and new variants or considered risk factors for co-circulating endemic viruses, such as rhinovirus.ObjectiveTo understand how risk factors and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity changed over the course of the pandemic and to compare these to the factors associated with rhinovirus test positivity.DesignThis test-negative design study used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus test positivity and self-reported demographic and symptom variables over a 22-month period.SettingKing County, Washington, June 2020-April 2022Participants23,278 symptomatic individuals of all ages enrolled in a cross-sectional community surveillance study.ExposuresSelf-reported data for 15 demographic and health behavior variables and 16 symptoms.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or rhinovirus infection.ResultsClose contact with a SARS-CoV-2 case (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 4.3, 95% CI 3.7-5.0) and loss of smell/taste (aOR 3.7, 95% CI 3.0-4.5) were the variables most associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, but both attenuated during the Omicron period. Contact with a vaccinated case (aOR 2.4, 95% CI 1.7-3.3) was associated with a lower odds of test positivity than contact with an unvaccinated case (aOR 4.4, 95% CI 2.7-7.3). Sore throat was associated with Omicron infection (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.6-3.2) but not Delta. Vaccine effectiveness for participants fully vaccinated with a booster dose was 43% (95% CI 11-63%) for Omicron and 92% (95% CI 61-100%) for Delta.Variables associated with rhinovirus test positivity included age Conclusions and RelevanceEstimated risk factors and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection have changed over time. There was a shift in reported symptoms between the Delta and Omicron variants as well as reductions in the protection provided by vaccines. Racial and socioeconomic disparities persisted in the third year of SARS-CoV-2 circulation and were also present in rhinovirus infection, although the causal pathways remain unclear. Trends in testing behavior and availability may influence these results.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus infection?FindingsIn this test-negative design study of 23,278 participants, reporting close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 case was the strongest risk factor associated with test positivity. Loss of smell and taste was associated with the Delta variant, but not the Omicron variant. Vaccination and prior infection provided greater protection against Delta infection than Omicron Infection. Young age was the strongest predictor of rhinovirus positivity. Sociodemographic disparities were present for both SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus.MeaningMonitoring factors associated with respiratory pathogen test positivity remains important to identify at-risk populations in the post-SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period.

Background Unusually high snowfall in western Washington State in February 2019 led to widespread school and workplace closures. We assessed the impact of social distancing caused by this extreme weather event on the transmission of respiratory viruses. Methods Residual specimens from patients evaluated for acute respiratory illness at hospitals in the Seattle metropolitan area were screened for a panel of respiratory viruses. Transmission models were fit to each virus to estimate the magnitude reduction in transmission due to weather-related disruptions. Changes in contact rates and care-seeking were informed by data on local traffic volumes and hospital visits. Results Disruption in contact patterns reduced effective contact rates during the intervention period by 16 to 95%, and cumulative disease incidence through the remainder of the season by 3 to 9%. Incidence reductions were greatest for viruses that were peaking when the disruption occurred and least for viruses in an early epidemic phase. Conclusion High-intensity, short-duration social distancing measures may substantially reduce total incidence in a respiratory virus epidemic if implemented near the epidemic peak. For SARS-CoV-2, this suggests that, even when SARS-CoV-2 spread is out of control, implementing short-term disruptions can prevent COVID-19 deaths.

Novel variants continue to emerge in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. University testing programs may provide timely epidemiologic and genomic surveillance data to inform public health responses. We conducted testing from September 2021 to February 2022 in a university population under vaccination and indoor mask mandates. A total of 3,048 of 24,393 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR; whole genome sequencing identified 209 Delta and 1,730 Omicron genomes of the 1,939 total sequenced. Compared to Delta, Omicron had a shorter median serial interval between genetically identical, symptomatic infections within households (2 versus 6 days, P=0.021). Omicron also demonstrated a greater peak reproductive number (2.4 versus 1.8) and a 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.58, 1.57; P

Description, A unique four-plexed RT-LAMP test kit operated by health workers can provide faster, more sensitive results than laboratory tests., RNA amplification tests sensitively detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but their complexity and cost are prohibitive for expanding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing. We developed “Harmony COVID-19,” a point-of-care test using inexpensive consumables, ready-to-use reagents, and a simple device. Our ready-to-use, multiplexed reverse transcription, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) can detect down to 0.38 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/μl and can report in 17 min for high–viral load samples (5000 copies/μl). Harmony detected 97 or 83% of contrived samples with ≥0.5 viral particles/μl in nasal matrix or saliva, respectively. Evaluation in clinical nasal specimens (n = 101) showed 100% detection of RNA extracted from specimens with ≥0.5 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/μl, with 100% specificity in specimens positive for other respiratory pathogens. Extraction-free analysis (n = 29) had 95% success in specimens with ≥1 RNA copies/μl. Usability testing performed first time by health care workers showed 95% accuracy.

The circulation of respiratory viruses poses a significant health risk among those residing in congregate settings. Data are limited on seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) infections in homeless shelter settings.We analysed data from a clinical trial and SARS-CoV-2 surveillance study at 23 homeless shelter sites in King County, Washington between October 2019-May 2021. Eligible participants were shelter residents aged ≥3 months with acute respiratory illness. We collected enrolment data and nasal samples for respiratory virus testing using multiplex RT-PCR platform including HCoV. Beginning April 1, 2020, eligibility expanded to shelter residents and staff regardless of symptoms. HCoV species was determined by RT-PCR with species-specific primers, OpenArray assay or genomic sequencing for samples with an OpenArray relative cycle threshold22.Of the 14,464 samples from 3281 participants between October 2019-May 2021, 107 were positive for HCoV from 90 participants (median age 40 years, range: 0·9-81 years, 38% female). HCoV-HKU1 was the most common species identified before and after community-wide mitigation. No HCoV-positive samples were identified between May 2020-December 2020. Adults aged ≥50 years had the highest detection of HCoV (11%) among virus-positive samples among all age-groups. Species and sequence data showed diversity between and within HCoV species over the study period.HCoV infections occurred in all congregate homeless shelter site age-groups with the greatest proportion among those aged ≥50 years. Species and sequencing data highlight the complexity of HCoV epidemiology within and between shelters sites.Gates Ventures, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health.

The increasing prevalence of variant lineages during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to disrupt molecular diagnostics due to mismatches between primers and variant templates. Point-of-care molecular diagnostics, which often lack the complete functionality of their high-throughput laboratory counterparts, are particularly susceptible to this type of disruption, which can result in false-negative results. To address this challenge, we have developed a robust Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification assay with single tube multiplexed multitarget redundancy and an internal amplification control. A convenient and cost-effective target-specific fluorescence detection system allows amplifications to be grouped by signal using adaptable probes for pooled reporting of SARS-CoV-2 target amplifications or differentiation of the Internal Amplification Control. Over the course of the pandemic, primer coverage of viral lineages by the three redundant sub-assays has varied from assay to assay as they have diverged from the Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate sequence, but aggregate coverage has remained high for all variant sequences analyzed, with a minimum of 97.4% (Variant of Interest: Eta). In three instances (Delta, Gamma, Eta), a high-frequency mismatch with one of the three sub-assays was observed, but overall coverage remained high due to multitarget redundancy. When challenged with extracted human samples the multiplex assay showed 87% or better sensitivity (of 30 positive samples), with 100% sensitivity for samples containing greater than 30 copies of viral RNA per reaction (of 21 positive samples), and 100% specificity (of 60 negative samples). These results are further evidence that conventional laboratory methodologies can be leveraged at the point of care for robust performance and diagnostic stability over time.

BackgroundCOVID-19 pandemic interrupted routine care for individuals living with HIV, putting them at risk of becoming virologically unsuppressed and ill. Often they are at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease once infected. For this population, it is urgent to closely monitor HIV plasma viral load (VL) and screen for SARS-COV-2 infection.MethodWe have developed a non-proprietary method to isolate RNA from plasma, nasal secretions (NS), or both. HIV, SARS-CoV-2, and human RP targets in extracted RNA are then RT-qPCR to estimate the VL and classify HIV/SARS-CoV-2 status (i.e., HIV as VL failure or suppressed; SARS-CoV-2 as positive, presumptive positive, negative, or indeterminate). We evaluated this workflow on 133 clinical specimens: 40 plasma specimens (30 HIV-seropositive), 67 NS specimens (31 SARS-CoV-2-positive), and 26 pooled plasma/NS specimens (26 HIV-positive with 10 SARS-CoV-2-positive), and compared the results obtained using the in-house extraction to those using a commercial extraction kit.ResultsIn-house extraction had a detection limit of 200-copies/mL for HIV and 100-copies/mL for SARS-CoV-2. In-house and commercial methods yielded positively correlated HIV VL (R2: 0.98 for contrived samples; 0.81 for seropositive plasma). SARS-CoV-2 detection had 100% concordant classifications in contrived samples, and in clinical NS extracted by in-house method, excluding indeterminate results, was 95% concordant (25 positives, 6 presumptive positives, and 31 negatives) to those using the commercial method. Analysis of pooled plasma/NS showed R2of 0.91 (contrived samples) and 0.71 (clinical specimens) for HIV VL correlations obtained by both extraction methods, while SARS-CoV-2 detection showed 100% concordance in contrived and clinical specimens.InterpretationOur low-cost workflow for molecular testing of HIV and SARS-CoV-2 could serve as an alternative to current standard assays for laboratories in low-resource settings.

BackgroundTesting programs have been utilized as part of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation strategies on university campuses, and it is not known which strategies successfully identify cases and contain outbreaks.ObjectiveEvaluation of a testing program to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission at a large university.DesignProspective longitudinal study using remote contactless enrollment, daily mobile symptom and exposure tracking, and self-swab sample collection. Individuals were tested if the participant was (1) exposed to a known case, developed new symptoms, or reported high-risk behavior, (2) a member of a group experiencing an outbreak, or (3) at baseline upon enrollment.SettingAn urban, public university during Autumn quarter of 2020ParticipantsStudents, staff, and faculty.MeasurementsSARS-CoV-2 PCR testing was conducted, and viral genome sequencing was performed.ResultsWe enrolled 16,476 individuals, performed 29,783 SARS-CoV-2 tests, and detected 236 infections. Greek community affiliation was the strongest risk factor for testing positive. 75.0% of positive cases reported at least one of the following: symptoms (60.8%), exposure (34.7%), or high-risk behaviors (21.5%). 88.1% of viral genomes (52/59) sequenced from Greek-affiliated students were genetically identical to at least one other genome detected, indicative of rapid SARS-CoV-2 spread within this group, compared to 37.9% (11/29) of genomes from non-Greek students and employees.LimitationsObservational study.ConclusionIn a setting of limited resources during a pandemic, we prioritized testing of individuals with symptoms and high-risk exposure during outbreaks. Rapid spread of SARS- CoV-2 occurred within outbreaks without evidence of further spread to the surrounding community. A testing program focused on high-risk populations may be effective as part of a comprehensive university-wide mitigation strategy to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Unsupervised upper respiratory specimen collection is a key factor in the ability to massively scale SARS-CoV-2 testing. But there is concern that unsupervised specimen collection may produce inferior samples. Across two studies that included unsupervised at-home mid-turbinate specimen collection, ∼1% of participants used the wrong end of the swab. We found that molecular detection of respiratory pathogens and a human biomarker were comparable between specimens collected from the handle of the swab and those collected correctly. Older participants were more likely to use the swab backwards. Our results suggest that errors made during home-collection of nasal specimens do not preclude molecular detection of pathogens and specialized swabs may be an unnecessary luxury during a pandemic.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections is important for treatment, isolation of infected and exposed individuals, and contact tracing. RT-qPCR is the "gold-standard" method to sensitively detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, but most laboratory-developed RT-qPCR assays involve complex steps. Here, we aimed to simplify RT-qPCR assays by streamlining reaction setup, eliminating RNA extraction, and proposing reduced-cost detection workflows that avoid the need for expensive qPCR instruments.A low-cost RT-PCR based "kit" was developed for faster turnaround than the CDC developed protocol. We demonstrated three detection workflows: two that can be deployed in laboratories conducting assays of variable complexity, and one that could be simple enough for point-of-care. Analytical sensitivity was assessed using SARS-CoV-2 RNA spiked in simulated nasal matrix. Clinical performance was evaluated using contrived human nasal matrix (n = 41) and clinical nasal specimens collected from individuals with respiratory symptoms (n = 110).The analytical sensitivity of the lyophilised RT-PCR was 10 copies/reaction using purified SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 20 copies/reaction when using direct lysate in simulated nasal matrix. Evaluation of assay performance on contrived human matrix showed 96.7-100% specificity and 100% sensitivity at ≥20 RNA copies. A head-to-head comparison with the standard CDC protocol on clinical specimens showed 83.8-94.6% sensitivity and 96.8-100% specificity. We found 3.6% indeterminate samples (undetected human control), lower than 8.1% with the standard protocol.This preliminary work should support laboratories or commercial entities to develop and expand access to Covid-19 testing. Software guidance development for this assay is ongoing to enable implementation in other settings. FUND: USA NIH R01AI140845 and Seattle Children's Research Institute.

BACKGROUND Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for influenza used by individuals at home could potentially expand access to testing and reduce the impact of influenza on health systems. Improving access to testing could lead to earlier diagnosis following symptom onset, allowing more rapid interventions for those who test positive, including behavioral changes to minimize spread. However, the accuracy of RDTs for influenza has not been determined in self-testing populations. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the accuracy of an influenza RDT conducted at home by lay users with acute respiratory illness compared with that of a self-collected sample by the same individual mailed to a laboratory for reference testing. METHODS We conducted a comparative accuracy study of an at-home influenza RDT (Ellume) in a convenience sample of individuals experiencing acute respiratory illness symptoms. Participants were enrolled in February and March 2020 from the Greater Seattle region in Washington, United States. Participants were mailed the influenza RDT and reference sample collection materials, which they completed and returned for quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction influenza testing in a central laboratory. We explored the impact of age, influenza type, duration, and severity of symptoms on RDT accuracy and on cycle threshold for influenza virus and ribonuclease P, a marker of human DNA. RESULTS A total of 605 participants completed all study steps and were included in our analysis, of whom 87 (14.4%) tested positive for influenza by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (70/87, 80% for influenza A and 17/87, 20% for influenza B). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared with the reference test were 61% (95% CI 50%-71%) and 95% (95% CI 93%-97%), respectively. Among individuals with symptom onset ≤72 hours, sensitivity was 63% (95% CI 48%-76%) and specificity was 94% (95% CI 91%-97%), whereas, for those with duration >72 hours, sensitivity and specificity were 58% (95% CI 41%-74%) and 96% (95% CI 93%-98%), respectively. Viral load on reference swabs was negatively correlated with symptom onset, and quantities of the endogenous marker gene ribonuclease P did not differ among reference standard positive and negative groups, age groups, or influenza subtypes. The RDT did not have higher sensitivity or specificity among those who reported more severe illnesses. CONCLUSIONS The sensitivity and specificity of the self-test were comparable with those of influenza RDTs used in clinical settings. False-negative self-test results were more common when the test was used after 72 hours of symptom onset but were not related to inadequate swab collection or severity of illness. Therefore, the deployment of home tests may provide a valuable tool to support the management of influenza and other respiratory infections.

Background Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for influenza used by individuals at home could potentially expand access to testing and reduce the impact of influenza on health systems. Improving access to testing could lead to earlier diagnosis following symptom onset, allowing more rapid interventions for those who test positive, including behavioral changes to minimize spread. However, the accuracy of RDTs for influenza has not been determined in self-testing populations. Objective This study aims to assess the accuracy of an influenza RDT conducted at home by lay users with acute respiratory illness compared with that of a self-collected sample by the same individual mailed to a laboratory for reference testing. Methods We conducted a comparative accuracy study of an at-home influenza RDT (Ellume) in a convenience sample of individuals experiencing acute respiratory illness symptoms. Participants were enrolled in February and March 2020 from the Greater Seattle region in Washington, United States. Participants were mailed the influenza RDT and reference sample collection materials, which they completed and returned for quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction influenza testing in a central laboratory. We explored the impact of age, influenza type, duration, and severity of symptoms on RDT accuracy and on cycle threshold for influenza virus and ribonuclease P, a marker of human DNA. Results A total of 605 participants completed all study steps and were included in our analysis, of whom 87 (14.4%) tested positive for influenza by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (70/87, 80% for influenza A and 17/87, 20% for influenza B). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared with the reference test were 61% (95% CI 50%-71%) and 95% (95% CI 93%-97%), respectively. Among individuals with symptom onset ≤72 hours, sensitivity was 63% (95% CI 48%-76%) and specificity was 94% (95% CI 91%-97%), whereas, for those with duration >72 hours, sensitivity and specificity were 58% (95% CI 41%-74%) and 96% (95% CI 93%-98%), respectively. Viral load on reference swabs was negatively correlated with symptom onset, and quantities of the endogenous marker gene ribonuclease P did not differ among reference standard positive and negative groups, age groups, or influenza subtypes. The RDT did not have higher sensitivity or specificity among those who reported more severe illnesses. Conclusions The sensitivity and specificity of the self-test were comparable with those of influenza RDTs used in clinical settings. False-negative self-test results were more common when the test was used after 72 hours of symptom onset but were not related to inadequate swab collection or severity of illness. Therefore, the deployment of home tests may provide a valuable tool to support the management of influenza and other respiratory infections.

Background Although multiple respiratory viruses circulate in humans, few studies have compared the incidence of different viruses across the life course. We estimated the incidence of outpatient illness due to 12 different viruses during November 2018 through April 2019 in a fully enumerated population. Methods We conducted active surveillance for ambulatory care visits for acute respiratory illness (ARI) among members of Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA). Enrolled patients provided respiratory swab specimens which were tested for 12 respiratory viruses using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We estimated the cumulative incidence of infection due to each virus overall and by age group. Results The KPWA population under surveillance included 202 562 individuals, of whom 2767 (1.4%) were enrolled in the study. Influenza A(H3N2) was the most commonly detected virus, with an overall incidence of 21 medically attended illnesses per 1000 population; the next most common viruses were influenza A(H1N1) (18 per 1000), coronaviruses (13 per 1000), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV, 13 per 1000), and rhinovirus (9 per 1000). RSV was the most common cause of medically attended ARI among children aged 1–4 years; coronaviruses were the most common among adults aged ≥65 years. Conclusions Consistent with other studies focused on single viruses, we found that influenza and RSV were major causes of acute respiratory illness in persons of all ages. In comparison, coronaviruses and rhinovirus were also important pathogens. Prior to the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), coronaviruses were the second-most common cause of medically attended ARI during the 2018/19 influenza season.

While influenza and other respiratory pathogens cause significant morbidity and mortality, the community-based burden of these infections remains incompletely understood. The development of novel methods to detect respiratory infections is essential for mitigating epidemics and developing pandemic-preparedness infrastructure., While influenza and other respiratory pathogens cause significant morbidity and mortality, the community-based burden of these infections remains incompletely understood. The development of novel methods to detect respiratory infections is essential for mitigating epidemics and developing pandemic-preparedness infrastructure. From October 2019 to March 2020, we conducted a home-based cross-sectional study in the greater Seattle, WA, area, utilizing electronic consent and data collection instruments. Participants received nasal swab collection kits via rapid delivery within 24 hours of self-reporting respiratory symptoms. Samples were returned to the laboratory and were screened for 26 respiratory pathogens and a housekeeping gene. Participant data were recorded via online survey at the time of sample collection and 1 week later. Of the 4,572 consented participants, 4,359 (95.3%) received a home swab kit and 3,648 (83.7%) returned a nasal specimen for respiratory pathogen screening. The 3,638 testable samples had a mean RNase P relative cycle threshold (Crt) value of 19.0 (SD, 3.4), and 1,232 (33.9%) samples had positive results for one or more pathogens, including 645 (17.7%) influenza-positive specimens. Among the testable samples, the median time between shipment of the home swab kit and completion of laboratory testing was 8.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 7.0 to 14.0). A single adverse event occurred and did not cause long-term effects or require medical attention. Home-based surveillance using online participant enrollment and specimen self-collection is a safe and feasible method for community-level monitoring of influenza and other respiratory pathogens, which can readily be adapted for use during pandemics.

In October 2020, an outbreak of at least 50 COVID-19 cases was reported surrounding individuals employed at or visiting the White House. Here, we applied genomic epidemiology to investigate the origins of this outbreak. We enrolled two individuals with exposures linked to the White House COVID-19 outbreak into an IRB-approved research study and sequenced their SARS-CoV-2 infections. We find these viral sequences are identical to each other, but are distinct from over 190,000 publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genomes. These genomes fall as part of a lineage circulating in the USA since April or May 2020 and detected in Virginia and Michigan. Looking forwards, sequencing of additional community SARS-CoV-2 infections collected in the USA prior to October 2020 may shed further light on its geographic ancestry. In sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 infections collected after October 2020, it may be possible to identify infections that likely descend from the White House COVID-19 outbreak.

IntroductionInfluenza epidemics and pandemics cause significant morbidity and mortality. An effective response to a potential pandemic requires the infrastructure to rapidly detect, characterize, and potentially contain new and emerging influenza strains at a population level. The objective of this study is to use data gathered simultaneously from community and hospital sites to develop a model of how influenza enters and spreads in a population.Methods and AnalysisStarting in the 2018-19 season, we have been enrolling individuals with acute respiratory illness from community sites throughout the Seattle metropolitan area, including clinics, childcare facilities, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, workplaces, college campuses, and homeless shelters. At these sites, we collect clinical data and mid-nasal swabs from individuals with at least two acute respiratory symptoms. Additionally, we collect residual nasal swabs and data from individuals who seek care for respiratory symptoms at four regional hospitals. Samples are tested using a multiplex molecular assay, and influenza whole genome sequencing is performed for samples with influenza detected. Geospatial mapping and computational modeling platforms are in development to characterize the regional spread of influenza and other respiratory pathogens.Ethics and DisseminationThe study was approved by the University of Washington’s Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through talks at conferences, peer-reviewed publications, and on the study website (www.seattleflu.org).Article SummaryStrengths and limitations of this study-Large-scale multiple-arm study of respiratory illness characterization with collection of samples from individuals in the community as well as in ambulatory care and hospital settings-Integration of sociodemographic, clinical, and geospatial data on a regional level-Multiplex molecular testing for multiple viral and bacterial pathogens and whole genome sequencing of influenza for detailed molecular epidemiologic characterization and transmission mapping-Geographically and socioeconomically diverse sampling of community-based acute respiratory illnesses

Background Noninfluenza respiratory viruses are responsible for a substantial burden of disease in the United States. Household transmission is thought to contribute significantly to subsequent transmission through the broader community. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, contactless surveillance methods are of particular importance. Methods From November 2019 to April 2020, 303 households in the Seattle area were remotely monitored in a prospective longitudinal study for symptoms of respiratory viral illness. Enrolled participants reported weekly symptoms and submitted respiratory samples by mail in the event of an acute respiratory illness (ARI). Specimens were tested for 14 viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Participants completed all study procedures at home without physical contact with research staff. Results In total, 1171 unique participants in 303 households were monitored for ARI. Of participating households, 128 (42%) included a child aged Conclusions This study highlights the circulation of respiratory viruses within households during the winter months during the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Contactless methods of recruitment, enrollment, and sample collection were utilized throughout this study and demonstrate the feasibility of home-based, remote monitoring for respiratory infections.

Detection of Covid-19 through a Citywide Surveillance Platform The Seattle Flu study, initiated in 2018, mailed kits for home collection of midnasal swabs to people reporting respiratory symptoms. ...

Structured AbstractBackgroundThe urgent need for massively scaled clinical testing for SARS-CoV-2, along with global shortages of critical reagents and supplies, has necessitated development of streamlined laboratory testing protocols. Conventional nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 involves collection of a clinical specimen with a nasopharyngeal swab in transport medium, nucleic acid extraction, and quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) (1). As testing has scaled across the world, the global supply chain has buckled, rendering testing reagents and materials scarce (2). To address shortages, we developed SwabExpress, an end-to-end protocol developed to employ mass produced anterior nares swabs and bypass the requirement for transport media and nucleic acid extraction.MethodsWe evaluated anterior nares swabs, transported dry and eluted in low-TE buffer as a direct-to-RT-qPCR alternative to extraction-dependent viral transport media. We validated our protocol of using heat treatment for viral activation and added a proteinase K digestion step to reduce amplification interference. We tested this protocol across archived and prospectively collected swab specimens to fine-tune test performance.ResultsAfter optimization, SwabExpress has a low limit of detection at 2-4 molecules/uL, 100% sensitivity, and 99.4% specificity when compared side-by-side with a traditional RT-qPCR protocol employing extraction. On real-world specimens, SwabExpress outperforms an automated extraction system while simultaneously reducing cost and hands-on time.ConclusionSwabExpress is a simplified workflow that facilitates scaled testing for COVID-19 without sacrificing test performance. It may serve as a template for the simplification of PCR-based clinical laboratory tests, particularly in times of critical shortages during pandemics.

A series of unfortunate events The history of how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread around the planet has been far from clear. Several narratives have been propagated by social media and, in some cases, national policies were forged in response. Now that many thousands of virus sequences are available, two studies analyzed some of the key early events in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Bedford et al. found that the virus arrived in Washington state in late January or early February. The viral genome from the first case detected had mutations similar to those found in Chinese samples and rapidly spread and dominated subsequent undetected community transmission. The other viruses detected had origins in Europe. Worobey et al. found that early introductions into Germany and the west coast of the United States were extinguished by vigorous public health efforts, but these successes were largely unrecognized. Unfortunately, several major travel events occurred in February, including repatriations from China, with lax public health follow-up. Serial, independent introductions triggered the major outbreaks in the United States and Europe that still hold us in the grip of control measures. Science, this issue p. 571, p. 564, The first case of SARS-CoV-2 in Washington state occurred at the end of January and, by going undetected, sparked community transmission., After its emergence in Wuhan, China, in late November or early December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus rapidly spread globally. Genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 allows the reconstruction of its transmission history, although this is contingent on sampling. We analyzed 453 SARS-CoV-2 genomes collected between 20 February and 15 March 2020 from infected patients in Washington state in the United States. We find that most SARS-CoV-2 infections sampled during this time derive from a single introduction in late January or early February 2020, which subsequently spread locally before active community surveillance was implemented.

IntroductionWhile seasonal influenza and other respiratory pathogens cause significant morbidity and mortality each year, the community-based burden of these infections remains incompletely understood. Understanding the prevalence, epidemiology, and transmission dynamics of respiratory pathogen infections among community-dwelling individuals is essential during pandemic and epidemic settings and for developing pandemic-preparedness infrastructure.Methods and AnalysisWe present the protocol for a novel, city-wide home-based cross-sectional study in the Seattle Metropolitan area, utilizing rapid delivery systems for self-collection of a nasal swab and return to the laboratory for respiratory pathogen testing. All participation takes place electronically, including recruitment, consent, and data collection. Within 48 hours of participants self-reporting respiratory symptoms, a nasal swab kit is delivered to the household via a courier service. Demographic and illness characteristics are collected at the time of sample collection and recovery and behavioral information collected one week later. Specimens are tested in the laboratory for multiple respiratory pathogens, and results are available on a public website for participants.Ethics and DisseminationThe study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (Protocol #00006181). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, talks at conferences, and on the Study Website (www.seattleflu.org).Article SummaryThe findings of this study will inform whether a home-based approach to city-wide respiratory surveillance is possible in epidemic settingsA key strength of this study is that it is conducted across diverse neighborhoods spanning a major metropolitan areaClinical findings may not be generalizable, as they are reliant on self-report (vaccination status, symptoms, healthcare utilization, etc.)

BACKGROUNDUnusually high snowfall in western Washington State in February 2019 led to widespread school and workplace closures. We assessed the impact of social distancing caused by this extreme weather event on the transmission of respiratory viruses.METHODSResidual specimens from patients evaluated for acute respiratory illness at hospitals in the Seattle metropolitan area were screened for a panel of respiratory viruses. Transmission models were fit to each virus, with disruption of contact rates and care-seeking informed by data on local traffic volumes and hospital admissions.RESULTSDisruption in contact patterns reduced effective contact rates during the intervention period by 16% to 95%, and cumulative disease incidence through the remainder of the season by 3% to 9%. Incidence reductions were greatest for viruses that were peaking when the disruption occurred and least for viruses in early epidemic phase.CONCLUSIONHigh-intensity, short-duration social distancing measures may substantially reduce total incidence in a respiratory virus epidemic if implemented near the epidemic peak.One sentence summaryDisruptions of school and work due to heavy snowfall in the Seattle metro area reduced the total size of respiratory virus epidemics by up to 9%.

Importance The association between COVID-19 symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 viral levels in children living in the community is not well understood. Objective To characterize symptoms of pediatric COVID-19 in the community and analyze the association between symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels, as approximated by cycle threshold (Ct) values, in children and adults. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used a respiratory virus surveillance platform in persons of all ages to detect community COVID-19 cases from March 23 to November 9, 2020. A population-based convenience sample of children younger than 18 years and adults in King County, Washington, who enrolled online for home self-collection of upper respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing were included. Exposures Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from participant-collected samples. Main Outcomes and Measures RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with Ct values stratified by age and symptoms. Results Among 555 SARS-CoV-2–positive participants (mean [SD] age, 33.7 [20.1] years; 320 were female [57.7%]), 47 of 123 children (38.2%) were asymptomatic compared with 31 of 432 adults (7.2%). When symptomatic, fewer symptoms were reported in children compared with adults (mean [SD], 1.6 [2.0] vs 4.5 [3.1]). Symptomatic individuals had lower Ct values (which corresponded to higher viral RNA levels) than asymptomatic individuals (adjusted estimate for children, −3.0; 95% CI, −5.5 to −0.6;P = .02; adjusted estimate for adults, −2.9; 95% CI, −5.2 to −0.6;P = .01). The difference in mean Ct values was neither statistically significant between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults (adjusted estimate, −0.7; 95% CI, −2.2 to 0.9;P = .41) nor between asymptomatic children and asymptomatic adults (adjusted estimate, −0.6; 95% CI, −4.0 to 2.8;P = .74). Conclusions and Relevance In this community-based cross-sectional study, SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels, as determined by Ct values, were significantly higher in symptomatic individuals than in asymptomatic individuals and no significant age-related differences were found. Further research is needed to understand the role of SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels and viral transmission.

Background Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections is important for treatment, isolation of infected and exposed individuals, and contact tracing. RT-qPCR is the “gold-standard” method to sensitively detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, but most laboratory-developed RT-qPCR assays involve complex steps. Here, we aimed to simplify RT-qPCR assays by streamlining reaction setup, eliminating RNA extraction, and proposing reduced-cost detection workflows that avoid the need for expensive qPCR instruments. Method A low-cost RT-PCR based “kit” was developed for faster turnaround than the CDC developed protocol. We demonstrated three detection workflows: two that can be deployed in laboratories conducting assays of variable complexity, and one that could be simple enough for point-of-care. Analytical sensitivity was assessed using SARS-CoV-2 RNA spiked in simulated nasal matrix. Clinical performance was evaluated using contrived human nasal matrix (n = 41) and clinical nasal specimens collected from individuals with respiratory symptoms (n = 110). Finding The analytical sensitivity of the lyophilised RT-PCR was 10 copies/reaction using purified SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 20 copies/reaction when using direct lysate in simulated nasal matrix. Evaluation of assay performance on contrived human matrix showed 96.7–100% specificity and 100% sensitivity at ≥20 RNA copies. A head-to-head comparison with the standard CDC protocol on clinical specimens showed 83.8–94.6% sensitivity and 96.8–100% specificity. We found 3.6% indeterminate samples (undetected human control), lower than 8.1% with the standard protocol. Interpretation This preliminary work should support laboratories or commercial entities to develop and expand access to Covid-19 testing. Software guidance development for this assay is ongoing to enable implementation in other settings. Fund USA NIH R01AI140845 and Seattle Children's Research Institute

Background Influenza epidemics and pandemics cause significant morbidity and mortality. An effective response to a potential pandemic requires the infrastructure to rapidly detect and contain new and emerging flu strains at a population level. The objective of this study was to use data gathered simultaneously from community and hospital sites to develop a model of how flu enters and spreads in a population. Methods In the 2018–2019 season, we enrolled individuals with respiratory illness from community sites throughout the Seattle area, including homeless shelters, childcare facilities, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, workplaces, college campuses, clinics, and at home (Figure 1). We collected data and nasal swabs from individuals with at least two respiratory symptoms. Additionally, we collected residual nasal swabs and data from individuals who sought care at four regional hospitals. Home-based self-testing for influenza and prediction models for influenza were piloted. Swabs were tested with a multiplex molecular assay, and influenza whole-genome sequencing was performed. Geospatial mapping and computational modeling platforms were developed to characterize regional spread of respiratory pathogens. Results A total of 18,847 samples were collected in the 2018–2019 season. Of those tested to date, 291/3,653 (8%) community and 2,393/11,273 (21%) hospital samples have influenza detected. Of the community enrollments, 39% had influenza-like illness. Community enrollees were in age groups not well-represented from hospitals. Influenza A/H3N2 activity peaked on college campuses and homeless shelters 2 weeks before the peak in hospitals. We observed multiple independent introductions of influenza strains into the city and evidence of sustained transmission chains within the city (Figures 2 and 3). Conclusion Utilizing the city-wide infrastructure we developed, we observed the introduction of influenza A/H3N2 into the community before the hospital and evidence of transmissions of unique strains into and within the Seattle area. These data provide the blueprint for implementing city-wide, community-based surveillance systems for rapid detection, real-time assessment of transmission patterns, and interruption of spread of seasonal or pandemic strains. Disclosures Helen Y. Chu, MD MPH, Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member), Michael Boeckh, MD PhD, Ablynx (Consultant, Grant/Research Support), Ansun Biopharma (Consultant, Grant/Research Support), Bavarian Nordic (Consultant), Gilead (Consultant, Grant/Research Support), GlaxoSmithKline (Consultant), Vir Bio (Consultant, Grant/Research Support), Janet A. Englund, MD, Chimerix (Grant/Research Support), GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support), MedImmune/Astrazeneca (Grant/Research Support), Meissa Vaccines (Consultant), Merck (Grant/Research Support),Novavax (Grant/Research Support), Sanofi Pastuer (Consultant), Matthew Thompson, MD, Alere Inc. (Research Grant or Support), Roche Molecular Diagnostics (Consultant, Research Grant or Support, Speaker’s Bureau), . Other Authors: No reported disclosures.

Infliximab is a tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha antagonist that has revolutionised the treatment of Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis. However, infliximab therapy can be complicated by a variety of adverse reactions. Acute infusion reactions occur during or shortly after infusion and typically consist of fever, chills, nausea, dyspnoea and headaches. Delayed reactions, characterised by myalgias, arthralgias, fever, rash, pruritus, facial, hand or lip oedema, dysphagia, urticaria, sore throat and headache may occur 3-12 days after infusion. Although the mechanisms of these reactions are not yet clearly defined, emerging evidence indicates that these reactions may be associated with the immune response against infliximab and the development of antibodies to infliximab.A number of studies have identified protective factors that may minimise adverse reactions, presumably related to the immune response against infliximab. Factors that may be protective by helping to establish immune tolerance for the foreign infliximab protein include concomitant administration of immunomodulators or corticosteroids, starting infliximab therapy with a 0, 2, 6-week induction regimen, maintenance dose administration with infusions every 8 weeks or less, and avoiding long periods between infusions. Infliximab therapy also may have other immunological consequences. There is evidence that infliximab may impede the appropriate immune response to a number of pathogens, prohibiting its use in patients with active infections. In addition, patients should be screened and appropriately treated for tuberculosis before initiating infliximab therapy. The development of autoantibodies, such as antinuclear antibody or anti-ds-DNA, has also been described with infliximab therapy, although the development of clinical lupus-like syndrome is rare. While there is a theoretical risk of increased rate of malignancies due to antagonism of TNFalpha, to date there is no clear evidence of such an effect. In addition, cardiac and neurological adverse events associated with infliximab therapy have been described. The mechanism for these adverse events is unclear. In summary, infliximab therapy can be an effective treatment for Crohn's disease; however, a number of immunological consequences and adverse events may complicate the infusion of this agent. Appropriate prophylaxis and therapy of these adverse reactions will allow infliximab to be used safely in the vast majority of patients.