Variation in reported SARS-CoV-2 cases after testing policy changes
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Halford F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9398209 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate how a national policy of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) regardless of symptoms was implemented during outbreaks in Dutch nursing homes in the second wave of the pandemic and to explore barriers and facilitators to serial testing.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-method study of nursing homes in the Netherlands with a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak after 15 September 2020. Direct care staff and management from 355 healthcare organizations were invited to participate in a digital survey. A total of 74 out of 355 (20.9%) healthcare organizations participated and provided information about 117 nursing homes. We conducted 26 in-depth interviews on the outbreak and the testing strategy used. We also conducted four focus group meetings involving managers, physicians, nurses, and certified health assistants. Recordings were transcribed and data were thematically analyzed.ResultsOne hundred and four nursing homes (89%) tested residents regardless of their symptoms during the outbreak, and 85 nursing homes (73%) tested the staff regardless of their symptoms. However, interviews showed testing was sometimes implemented during later stages of the outbreak and was not always followed up with serial testing. Barriers to serial testing regardless of symptoms were lack of knowledge of local leaders with decisional making authority, lack of a cohort ward or skilled staff, and insufficient collaboration with laboratories or local public health services. Important facilitators to serial testing were staff willingness to undergo testing and the availability of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.ConclusionsSerial testing regardless of symptoms was only partially implemented. The response rate of 21% of nursing home organizations gives a risk of selection bias. Barriers to testing need to be addressed. A national implementation policy that promotes collaboration between public health services and nursing homes and educates management and care staff is necessary.
| S-EPMC9305839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.
| S-EPMC8524138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to examine how public health policies influenced the dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) time-varying reproductive number (R t ) in South Carolina from February 26, 2020, to January 1, 2021.MethodsCOVID-19 case series (March 6, 2020, to January 10, 2021) were shifted by 9 d to approximate the infection date. We analyzed the effects of state and county policies on R t using EpiEstim. We performed linear regression to evaluate if per-capita cumulative case count varies across counties with different population size.ResultsR t shifted from 2-3 in March to <1 during April and May. R t rose over the summer and stayed between 1.4 and 0.7. The introduction of statewide mask mandates was associated with a decline in R t (-15.3%; 95% CrI, -13.6%, -16.8%), and school re-opening, an increase by 12.3% (95% CrI, 10.1%, 14.4%). Less densely populated counties had higher attack rates (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe R t dynamics over time indicated that public health interventions substantially slowed COVID-19 transmission in South Carolina, while their relaxation may have promoted further transmission. Policies encouraging people to stay home, such as closing nonessential businesses, were associated with R t reduction, while policies that encouraged more movement, such as re-opening schools, were associated with R t increase.
| S-EPMC9530385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compensate for the poor initial knowledge about pediatric SARS-CoV-2 infections and the limited access to non-urgent medical care during lockdown, a local telephone follow-up program was set up to remotely monitor children with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection at the pediatric emergency department of a French tertiary hospital. We retrospectively assessed 131 children. A total of 488 phone call attempts resulted in 293 (60%) teleconsultations. This telephone follow-up program was simple and appeared necessary in the first stage of the pandemic with an emergent pathogen. However, it was time-consuming and should be improved for further use.
| S-EPMC8768017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has substantially reduced the risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after an occupational exposure; nevertheless, exposure to HIV remains a concern for emergency department providers. According to published guidelines, PEP should be taken only when source patients are HIV-positive or have risk factors for HIV. Initiating PEP when source patients are uninfected puts exposed persons at risk from taking toxic drugs with no compensating benefit. Forgoing PEP if the source is infected results in increased risk of acquiring HIV. What should be done if source patients refuse HIV testing? Is it justifiable to test the blood of these patients over their autonomous objection? The authors review current law and policy and perform an ethical analysis to determine if laws permitting unconsented testing in cases of occupational exposure can be ethically justified.
| S-EPMC3473147 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST379 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10-14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results.MethodsWe conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated.ResultsAcceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts.ConclusionsOur data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.
| S-EPMC8178661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpeculation on benefits and harms of prescription, over-the-counter and complementary medications has been widespread during the SARS-CoV-2 (or COVID-19) pandemic. This community-based survey assessed self-reported changes in medications including those stopped, started, or if access had been impacted.MethodsA survey was collected via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The survey was advertised in the community through social media, email lists, websites, and post-cards. Survey responses were collected between 5/21/2020 and 6/24/2020. Variables included demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, marital status, education, employment, income, and community type. Questions related to medication changes included: "Have you started any medication due to COVID-19?", "Have you stopped any medication due to COVID-19?" and "Have you had issues getting your prescription medications?". Respondents aged 50 years or older were included.ResultsThere were N = 1397 responses of which 1169 were older adults ≥50 years-old. Of these, 1141 responded to the medication changes survey questions and 28 had missing responses and were excluded from the survey sample for this analysis. Among these, 31 (2.7%) reported a medication change included 5 (0.4%) reported stopping a medication, 18 (1.6%) reported starting a medication, and 8 (0.7%) reported trouble obtaining medications. Medications started included mostly vitamins or other supplements including zinc (n = 9), vitamin C (6), and other supplements (3). Among prescription medications, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications (4) were reported as well as aspirin (1), losartan (1), and low dose naltrexone (1). One respondent reported unidentified homeopathy. There were no significant differences between those with medication changes and those with none.ConclusionsIn this community-based survey sample of over one thousand older adults, only a small percentage (2.7%; n = 31) reported any changes to medications during the pandemic. As essential workers during this crisis, pharmacists have played a critical role in providing medication information and continued access.
| S-EPMC7659512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, long-term care facilities (LTCFs) experienced a large burden of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to describe the temporal trends as well as the characteristics and risk factors for mortality among residents and staff who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in selected LTCFs across South Africa.MethodWe analysed data reported to the DATCOV sentinel surveillance system by 45 LTCFs. Outbreaks in LTCFs were defined as large if more than one-third of residents and staff had been infected or there were more than 20 epidemiologically linked cases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for mortality amongst LTCF residents.ResultsA total of 2324 SARS-CoV-2 cases were reported from 5 March 2020 through 31 July 2021; 1504 (65%) were residents and 820 (35%) staff. Among LTCFs, 6 reported sporadic cases and 39 experienced outbreaks. Of those reporting outbreaks, 10 (26%) reported one and 29 (74%) reported more than one outbreak. There were 48 (66.7%) small outbreaks and 24 (33.3%) large outbreaks reported. There were 30 outbreaks reported in the first wave, 21 in the second wave and 15 in the third wave, with 6 outbreaks reporting between waves. There were 1259 cases during the first COVID-19 wave, 362 during the second wave, and 299 during the current third wave. The case fatality ratio was 9% (138/1504) among residents and 0.5% (4/820) among staff. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 mortality among LTCF residents were age 40-59 years, 60-79 years and ≥ 80 years compared to < 40 years and being a resident in a LTCF in Free State or Northern Cape compared to Western Cape. Compared to pre-wave 1, there was a decreased risk of mortality in wave 1, post-wave 1, wave 2, post-wave 2 and wave 3.ConclusionThe analysis of SARS-CoV-2 cases in sentinel LTCFs in South Africa points to an encouraging trend of decreasing numbers of outbreaks, cases and risk for mortality since the first wave. LTCFs are likely to have learnt from international experience and adopted national protocols, which include improved measures to limit transmission and administer early and appropriate clinical care.
| S-EPMC9126632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibody responses to virus reflect exposure and potential protection.MethodsWe developed a highly specific and sensitive approach to measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 for population-scale immune surveillance. Antibody positivity was defined as a dual-positive response against both the receptor-binding domain and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Antibodies were measured by immunoprecipitation assays in capillary blood from 15,771 children aged 1 to 18 years living in Bavaria, Germany, and participating in a public health type 1 diabetes screening program (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04039945), in 1,916 dried blood spots from neonates in a Bavarian screening study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03316261), and in 75 SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals. Virus positive incidence was obtained from the Bavarian health authority data.FindingsDual-antibody positivity was detected in none of the 3,887 children in 2019 (100% specificity) and 73 of 75 SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals (97.3% sensitivity). Antibody surveillance in children during 2020 resulted in frequencies of 0.08% in January to March, 0.61% in April, 0.74% in May, 1.13% in June, and 0.91% in July. Antibody prevalence from April 2020 was 6-fold higher than the incidence of authority-reported cases (156 per 100,000 children), showed marked variation between the seven Bavarian regions (p < 0.0001), and was not associated with age or sex. Transmission in children with virus-positive family members was 35%. 47% of positive children were asymptomatic. No association with type 1 diabetes autoimmunity was observed. Antibody frequency in newborns was 0.47%.ConclusionsWe demonstrate the value of population-based screening programs for pandemic monitoring.FundingThe work was supported by funding from the BMBF (FKZ01KX1818).
| S-EPMC7598360 | biostudies-literature