A Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Prediction Model From Standard Laboratory Tests.

BACKGROUND: With the limited availability of testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and concerns surrounding the accuracy of existing methods, other means of identifying patients are urgently needed. Previous studies showing a correlation between certain laboratory tests and diagnosis suggest an alternative method based on an ensemble of tests. METHODS: We have trained a machine learning model to analyze the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 test results and 20 routine laboratory tests collected within a 2-day period around the SARS-CoV-2 test date. We used the model to compare SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients. RESULTS: In a cohort of 75 991 veteran inpatients and outpatients who tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the months of March through July 2020, 7335 of whom were positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antigen testing, and who had at least 15 of 20 lab results within the window period, our model predicted the results of the SARS-CoV-2 test with a specificity of 86.8%, a sensitivity of 82.4%, and an overall accuracy of 86.4% (with a 95% confidence interval of [86.0%, 86.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: Although molecular-based and antibody tests remain the reference standard method for confirming a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, their clinical sensitivity is not well known. The model described herein may provide a complementary method of determining SARS-CoV-2 infection status, based on a fully independent set of indicators, that can help confirm results from other tests as well as identify positive cases missed by molecular testing.

Reduced Mortality With Ondansetron Use in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Inpatients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a surge in clinical trials evaluating investigational and approved drugs. Retrospective analysis of drugs taken by COVID-19 inpatients provides key information on drugs associated with better or worse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 10 741 patients testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection within 3 days of admission to compare risk of 30-day all-cause mortality in patients receiving ondansetron using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, adverse events such as ischemic cerebral infarction, and subsequent positive COVID-19 tests were measured. RESULTS: Administration of ≥8 mg of ondansetron within 48 hours of admission was correlated with an adjusted hazard ratio for 30-day all-cause mortality of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.70; P < .001) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.31-0.87; P = .012) for all and intensive care unit-admitted patients, respectively. Decreased lengths of stay (9.2 vs 11.6; P < .001), frequencies of subsequent positive SARS-CoV-2 tests (53.6% vs 75.0%; P = .01), and long-term risks of ischemic cerebral ischemia (3.2% vs 6.1%; P < .001) were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: If confirmed by prospective clinical trials, our results suggest that ondansetron, a safe, widely available drug, could be used to decrease morbidity and mortality in at-risk populations.

Instructional interventions for improving COVID-19 knowledge, attitudes, behaviors: Evidence from a large-scale RCT in India.

Seeking ways to encourage broad compliance with health guidelines during the pandemic, especially among youth, we test two hypotheses pertaining to the optimal design of instructional interventions for improving COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. We randomly assigned 8376 lower-middle income youth in urban India to three treatments: a concentrated and targeted fact-based, instructional intervention; a longer instructional intervention that provided the same facts along with underlying scientific concepts; and a control. Relative to existing efforts, we find that both instructional interventions increased COVID-19-related knowledge immediately after intervention. Relative to the shorter fact-based intervention, the longer intervention resulted in sustained improvements in knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behavior. Instead of reducing attention and comprehension by youth, the longer scientific based treatment appears to have increased understanding and retention of the material. The findings are instrumental to understanding the design of instruction and communication in affecting compliance during this and future pandemics.