Real time monitoring of COVID-19 intervention effectiveness through contact tracing data.

Communities worldwide have used vaccines and facemasks to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. When an individual opts to vaccinate or wear a mask, they may lower their own risk of becoming infected as well as the risk that they pose to others while infected. The first benefit-reducing susceptibility-has been established across multiple studies, while the second-reducing infectivity-is less well understood. Using a new statistical method, we estimate the efficacy of vaccines and facemasks at reducing both types of risks from contact tracing data collected in an urban setting. We find that vaccination reduced the risk of onward transmission by 40.7% [95% CI 25.8-53.2%] during the Delta wave and 31.0% [95% CI 19.4-40.9%] during the Omicron wave and that mask wearing reduced the risk of infection by 64.2% [95% CI 5.8-77.3%] during the Omicron wave. By harnessing commonly-collected contact tracing data, the approach can broadly provide timely and actionable estimates of intervention efficacy against a rapidly evolving pathogen.

Do upper respiratory viruses contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in emergency department visits for asthma?

BACKGROUND: There are marked disparities in asthma-related emergency department (ED) visit rates among children by race and ethnicity. Following the implementation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention measures, asthma-related ED visits rates declined substantially. The decline has been attributed to the reduced circulation of upper respiratory viruses, a common trigger of asthma exacerbations in children. OBJECTIVES: To better understand the contribution of respiratory viruses to racial and ethnic disparities in ED visit rates, we investigated whether the reduction in ED visit rates affected Black, Latinx, and White children with asthma equally. METHODS: Asthma-related ED visits were extracted from electronic medical records at Dell Children's Medical Center in Travis County, Texas. ED visit rates among children with asthma were derived by race/ethnicity. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs were estimated by year (2019-2021) and season. RESULTS: In spring 2019, the ED visit IRRs comparing Black children with White children and Latinx children with White children were 6.67 (95% CI = 4.92-9.05) and 2.10 (95% CI = 1.57-2.80), respectively. In spring 2020, when infection prevention measures were implemented, the corresponding IRRs decreased to 1.73 (95% CI = 0.90-3.32) and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.38-1.23), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The striking reduction of disparities in ED visits suggests that during nonpandemic periods, respiratory viruses contribute to the excess burden of asthma-related ED visits among Black and Latinx children with asthma. Although further investigation is needed to test this hypothesis, our findings raise the question of whether Black and Latinx children with asthma are more vulnerable to upper respiratory viral infections.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load is associated with risk of transmission to household and community contacts.

BACKGROUND: Factors that lead to successful SARS-CoV-2 transmission are still not well described. We investigated the association between a case's viral load and the risk of transmission to contacts in the context of other exposure-related factors. METHODS: Data were generated through routine testing and contact tracing at a large university. Case viral loads were obtained from cycle threshold values associated with a positive polymerase chain reaction test result from October 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021. Cases were included if they had at least one contact who tested 3-14 days after the exposure. Case-contact pairs were formed by linking index cases with contacts. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate differences in proportions of contacts testing positive. Generalized estimating equation models with a log link were used to evaluate whether viral load and other exposure-related factors were associated with a contact testing positive. RESULTS: Median viral load among the 212 cases included in the study was 5.6 (1.8-10.4) log10 RNA copies per mL of saliva. Among 365 contacts, 70 (19%) tested positive following their exposure; 36 (51%) were exposed to a case that was asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic on the day of exposure. The proportion of contacts that tested positive increased monotonically with index case viral load (12%, 23% and 25% corresponding to < 5, 5-8 and > 8 log10 copies per mL, respectively; X2 = 7.18, df = 2, p = 0.03). Adjusting for cough, time between test and exposure, and physical contact, the risk of transmission to a close contact was significantly associated with viral load (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.22-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand whether these relationships persist for newer variants. For those variants whose transmission advantage is mediated through a high viral load, public health measures could be scaled accordingly. Index cases with higher viral loads could be prioritized for contact tracing and recommendations to quarantine contacts could be made according to the likelihood of transmission based on risk factors such as viral load.

Adoption of digital tools in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Region of the Americas - the Go.Data experience.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the growth of digital health tools. Although a number of different tools exist to support field data collection in the context of outbreak response, they have not been sufficient. This prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to collaborate with the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) and GOARN partners to develop a comprehensive system, Go.Data. Go.Data, a digital tool for outbreak response has simplified how countries operationalize and monitor case and contact data. Since the start of the pandemic, WHO and GOARN partners have provided support to Go.Data projects in 65 countries and territories, yet the demand by countries to have documented success cases of Go.Data implementations continues to grow. This viewpoint documents the successful Go.Data implementation frameworks in two countries, Argentina and Guatemala and an academic institution, the University of Texas at Austin.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 testing and contact tracing in a US city.

Although testing, contact tracing, and case isolation programs can mitigate COVID-19 transmission and allow the relaxation of social distancing measures, few countries worldwide have succeeded in scaling such efforts to levels that suppress spread. The efficacy of test-trace-isolate likely depends on the speed and extent of follow-up and the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Here, we use a granular model of COVID-19 transmission to estimate the public health impacts of test-trace-isolate programs across a range of programmatic and epidemiological scenarios, based on testing and contact tracing data collected on a university campus and surrounding community in Austin, TX, between October 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021. The median time between specimen collection from a symptomatic case and quarantine of a traced contact was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 2 to 3) on campus and 5 days (IQR: 3 to 8) in the community. Assuming a reproduction number of 1.2, we found that detection of 40% of all symptomatic cases followed by isolation is expected to avert 39% (IQR: 30% to 45%) of COVID-19 cases. Contact tracing is expected to increase the cases averted to 53% (IQR: 42% to 58%) or 40% (32% to 47%), assuming the 2- and 5-day delays estimated on campus and in the community, respectively. In a tracing-accelerated scenario, in which 75% of contacts are notified the day after specimen collection, cases averted increase to 68% (IQR: 55% to 72%). An accelerated contact tracing program leveraging rapid testing and electronic reporting of test results can significantly curtail local COVID-19 transmission.

Screening Programs for SARS-CoV-2 Infections on a University Campus - Austin, Texas, September 30-November 30, 2020.

Colleges and universities in the United States have relied on various measures during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including implementing testing programs (1-3). These programs have permitted a safer return to campus for students by identifying infected persons and temporarily isolating them from the campus population (2,3). The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) implemented COVID-19 prevention measures in Fall 2020* including the following testing programs: clinic-based diagnostic testing, voluntary community screening, and targeted screening (testing of specific student populations in situations of increased transmission risk). During September 30-November 30, 2020, UT Austin students participated in tests for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in the detection of 401 unique student cases of COVID-19 from among 32,401 tests conducted.† Among students who participated in one targeted screening program for students attending campus events, 18 (37.5%) of 48 infected students were asymptomatic at the time of their positive test result compared with 45 (23%) of 195 students identified through community testing and nine (5.8%) of 158 students identified through clinic-based testing. Targeted screening also identified a different population of students than did clinic-based and community testing programs. Infected students tested through targeted screening were more likely to be non-Hispanic White persons (chi square = 20.42; p<0.03), less likely to engage in public health measures, and more likely to have had interactions in settings where the risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission is higher, such as restaurants, gyms, and residence halls. In addition to clinic-based SARS-CoV-2 testing at colleges and universities, complementary testing programs such as community and targeted screening might enhance efforts to identify and control SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially among asymptomatic persons and disproportionately affected populations that might not otherwise be reached.

Global health on the front lines: an innovative medical student elective combining education and service during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: An innovative medical student elective combined student-directed, faculty-supported online learning with COVID-19 response field placements. This study evaluated students' experience in the course, the curriculum content and format, and its short-term impact on students' knowledge and attitudes around COVID-19. METHODS: Students responded to discussion board prompts throughout the course and submitted pre-/post-course reflections. Pre-/post-course questionnaires assessed pandemic knowledge and attitudes using 4-point Likert scales. Authors collected aggregate data on enrollment, discussion posts, field placements, and scholarly work resulting from course activities. After the elective, authors conducted a focus group with a convenience sample of 6 participants. Institutional elective evaluation data was included in analysis. Authors analyzed questionnaire data with summary statistics and paired t-tests comparing knowledge and attitudes before and after the elective. Reflection pieces, discussion posts, and focus group data were analyzed using content analysis with a phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Twenty-seven students enrolled. Each student posted an average of 2.4 original discussion posts and 3.1 responses. Mean knowledge score increased from 43.8 to 60.8% (p <  0.001) between pre- and post-course questionnaires. Knowledge self-assessment also increased (2.4 vs. 3.5 on Likert scale, p <  0.0001), and students reported increased engagement in the pandemic response (2.7 vs. 3.6, p <  0.0001). Students reported increased fluency in discussing the pandemic and increased appreciation for the field of public health. There was no difference in students' level of anxiety about the pandemic after course participation (3.0 vs. 3.1, p = 0.53). Twelve students (44.4%) completed the institutional evaluation. All rated the course "very good" or "excellent." Students favorably reviewed the field placements, suggested readings, self-directed research, and learning from peers. They suggested more clearly defined expectations and improved balance between volunteer and educational hours. CONCLUSIONS: The elective was well-received by students, achieved stated objectives, and garnered public attention. Course leadership should monitor students' time commitment closely in service-learning settings to ensure appropriate balance of service and education. Student engagement in a disaster response is insufficient to address anxiety related to the disaster; future course iterations should include a focus on self-care during times of crisis. This educational innovation could serve as a model for medical schools globally.