Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 incidence and seroconversion among university students and employees: a longitudinal cohort study in California, June-August 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To identify incident SARS-CoV-2 infections and inform effective mitigation strategies in university settings, we piloted an integrated symptom and exposure monitoring and testing system among a cohort of university students and employees. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A public university in California from June to August 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 2180 university students and 738 university employees. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: At baseline and endline, we tested participants for active SARS-CoV-2 infection via quantitative PCR (qPCR) test and collected blood samples for antibody testing. Participants received notifications to complete additional qPCR tests throughout the study if they reported symptoms or exposures in daily surveys or were selected for surveillance testing. Viral whole genome sequencing was performed on positive qPCR samples, and phylogenetic trees were constructed with these genomes and external genomes. RESULTS: Over the study period, 57 students (2.6%) and 3 employees (0.4%) were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection via qPCR test. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that a super-spreader event among undergraduates in congregate housing accounted for at least 48% of cases among study participants but did not spread beyond campus. Test positivity was higher among participants who self-reported symptoms (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 12.7; 95% CI 7.4 to 21.8) or had household exposures (IRR 10.3; 95% CI 4.8 to 22.0) that triggered notifications to test. Most (91%) participants with newly identified antibodies at endline had been diagnosed with incident infection via qPCR test during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that integrated monitoring systems can successfully identify and link at-risk students to SARS-CoV-2 testing. As the study took place before the evolution of highly transmissible variants and widespread availability of vaccines and rapid antigen tests, further research is necessary to adapt and evaluate similar systems in the present context.

Risky business: A mixed methods study of decision-making regarding COVID-19 risk at a public university in the United States.

Introduction: Until vaccines became available in late 2020, our ability to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within countries depended largely on voluntary adherence to mitigation measures. However, individual decision-making regarding acceptable COVID-19 risk is complex. To better understand decision-making regarding COVID-19 risk, we conducted a qualitative substudy within a larger Berkeley COVID-19 Safe Campus Initiative (BCSCI) during the summer of 2020, and completed a mixed-methods analysis of factors influencing decision-making. Materials and methods: We interviewed 20 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 10 who remained negative, and analyzed quantitative survey data from 3,324 BCSCI participants. The BCSCI study enrolled university-affiliated people living in the local area during summer of 2020, collected data on behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19, and conducted SARS-CoV-2 testing at baseline and endline. Results: At baseline, 1362 students (57.5%) and 285 non-students (35.1%) said it had been somewhat or very difficult to comply with COVID-19-related mandates. Most-cited reasons were the need to go out for food/essentials, difficulty of being away from family/friends, and loneliness. Eight interviewees explicitly noted they made decisions partially because of others who may be at high risk. We did not find significant differences between the behaviors of students and non-students. Discussion: Despite prevailing attitudes about irresponsibility of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic, students in our study demonstrated a commitment to making rational choices about risk behavior, not unlike non-students around them. Decision-making was driven by perceived susceptibility to severe disease, need for social interaction, and concern about risk to others. A harm reduction public health approach may be beneficial.

Anticipated and Experienced Stigma After Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Stigma has inhibited public health practitioners' influence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the experienced and anticipated stigma of people affiliated with a large university in the United States, using the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary substudy of 20 people who tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 10 who tested negative in the summer of 2020, selected from a study of 3,324 university students and employees. FINDINGS: No participants reported anticipated stigmatization prior to testing positive. However, eight of 20 participants recounted stigma marking (being marked by COVID-19 diagnosis or membership in a "high-risk" group) or manifestations of stigma after testing positive, including feelings of guilt or shame, and concerns about being judged as selfish or irresponsible. Three described being denied services or social interactions as a result of having had COVID-19, long after their infectiousness ended. Participants noted that clear public health messaging must be paired with detailed scientific information, rather than leaving people to resort to non-experts to understand the science. DISCUSSION: Public health messaging designed to mitigate spread of SARS-CoV-2 and protect the community may perpetuate stigma and exacerbate inequities. As a result, people may avoid testing or treatment, mistrust public health messaging, or even use risk-increasing behavior as coping mechanisms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Intentional use of language that promotes equity and deters discrimination must be high priority for any COVID-19-related public health messaging. Partnership with community leaders to co-create programs and disseminate messaging is a critical strategy for reducing stigma, especially for historically mistreated groups.

Acceptability and feasibility of leveraging community-based HIV counselling and testing platforms for same-day oral PrEP initiation among adolescent girls and young women in Eastern Cape, South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Community-based delivery of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to South African adolescent girls and young women's (AGYW) could increase access but needs evaluation. We integrated PrEP services via home-based services and pop-up tents into existing community-based HIV testing services (CB-HTS) in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. METHODS: After accessing CB-HTS via a "pop-up" tent or home-based services, HIV-negative AGYW aged 16-25 years were invited to complete a baseline questionnaire and referred for PrEP services at a community-based PrEP site co-located with pop-up HTS tents. A 30-day supply of PrEP was dispensed. PrEP uptake, time-to-initiation, cohort characteristics and first medication refill within 90 days were measured using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 1164 AGYW who tested for HIV, 825 (74.3%) completed a questionnaire and 806 (97.7%) were referred for community-based PrEP. Of those, 624 (77.4%) presented for PrEP (482/483 [99.8%] from pop-up HTS and 142/323 [44.0%] from home-based HTS), of which 603 (96.6%) initiated PrEP. Of those initiating PrEP following home-based HTS, 59.1% initiated within 0-3 days, 25.6% within 4-14 days and 15.3% took ≥15 days to initiate; 100% of AGYW who used pop-up HTS initiated PrEP the same day. Among AGWY initiating PrEP, 37.5% had a detectable sexually transmitted infection (STI). Although AGYW reported a low self-perception of HIV risk, post-hoc application of HIV risk assessment measures to available data classified most study participants as high risk for HIV acquisition. Cumulatively, 329 (54.6%) AGYW presented for a first medication refill within 90 days of accepting their first bottle of PrEP. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging CB-HTS platforms to provide same-day PrEP initiation and refill services was acceptable to AGYW. A higher proportion of AGYW initiated PrEP when co-located with CB-HTS sites compared to those referred following home-based HTS, suggesting that proximity of CB-HTS and PrEP services facilitates PrEP uptake among AGYW. The high prevalence of STIs among those initiating PrEP necessitates the integration of STI and HIV prevention programs for AGYW. Eligibility for PrEP initiation should not be required among AHYW in high HIV burden communities. Community-based service delivery will be crucial to maintaining access to PrEP services during the COVID-19 pandemic and future health and humanitarian emergencies.

Hepatitis C Elimination During a Global Pandemic: A Case Study of Resilience in Action.

Until the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco's hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination initiative, End Hep C SF, was expanding and refining HCV testing and treatment strategies citywide, making progress toward local HCV elimination goals. Although a shelter-in-place health order issued in March 2020 categorized HCV testing as an "essential service," most HCV testing and treatment immediately stopped until COVID-19-safe protocols could be implemented. During the 14 months of pandemic-related organizational closures, End Hep C SF transitioned to a 100% virtual model, maintaining regularly scheduled meetings. Community-based HCV antibody testing decreased 80% from February to April 2020, and HCV treatment initiation also decreased, although both services started to rebound in mid-to-late 2020, partially as a result of End Hep C SF collaborations. End Hep C SF service providers, clinicians, and advocates reported that the continuous communication and common agenda of End Hep C SF-2 principles of the collective impact initiative-served as a familiar touchpoint and helpful source of information during this isolating and uncertain time. Ultimately, End Hep C SF allowed us to continue HCV elimination strategies through 6 lessons learned: maintaining HCV treatment access through telehealth and mobile services; leveraging research studies that provided HCV testing and treatment; offering HCV screening and linkage to care in tandem with COVID-19-related initiatives; being flexible and inventive, such as administering HCV treatment to residents of shelter-in-place hotels; establishing a data dashboard to track HCV testing and treatment; and relying on partnerships to solve problems and avoid burnout.

Fluvoxamine for the Early Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Review of Current Evidence.

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes COVID-19, which frequently leads to clinical deterioration and/or long-lasting morbidity. Academic and governmental experts throughout the USA met in 2021 to discuss the potential for use of fluvoxamine as early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is a strong sigma-1 receptor agonist, and this may effectively reduce cytokine production, preventing clinical deterioration. This repurposed psychiatric medication has a well-known safety record, is inexpensive, easy to use, and widely available, all of which are advantages during this global COVID-19 pandemic. At the meeting, experts reviewed the existing published literature on the use of fluvoxamine as experimental COVID-19 treatment, as well as prior research on the potential mechanisms for anti-inflammatory effects of fluvoxamine, including for other conditions including sepsis. Investigators shared current trials underway and existing gaps in knowledge. Two randomized controlled trials and one observational study examining the effect of fluvoxamine in COVID-19 treatment have found high efficacy. Four larger randomized clinical trials are currently underway, including three in the USA and Canada. More data are needed on dosing and mechanisms of effect; however, fluvoxamine appears to have substantial potential as a safe and widely available medication that could be repurposed to ameliorate serious COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. As of April 2021, fluvoxamine was mentioned in the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines, although no recommendation is made for or against use. Available data may warrant clinician discussion of fluvoxamine as a treatment option for COVID-19, using shared decision making. Video Abstract.

Feasibility and effectiveness of daily temperature screening to detect COVID-19 in a prospective cohort at a large public university.

BACKGROUND: Many persons with active SARS-CoV-2 infection experience mild or no symptoms, presenting barriers to COVID-19 prevention. Regular temperature screening is nonetheless used in some settings, including university campuses, to reduce transmission potential. We evaluated the potential impact of this strategy using a prospective university-affiliated cohort. METHODS: Between June and August 2020, 2912 participants were enrolled and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at least once (median: 3, range: 1-9). Participants reported temperature and symptoms daily via electronic survey using a previously owned or study-provided thermometer. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of daily temperature monitoring, calculated sensitivity and specificity of various fever-based strategies for restricting campus access to reduce transmission, and estimated the association between measured temperature and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity using a longitudinal binomial mixed model. RESULTS: Most participants (70.2%) did not initially have a thermometer for taking their temperature daily. Across 5481 total person months, the average daily completion rate of temperature values was 61.6% (median: 67.6%, IQR: 41.8-86.2%). Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 0% (95% CI 0-9.7%) to 40.5% (95% CI 25.6-56.7%) across all strategies for self-report of possible COVID-19 symptoms on day of specimen collection, with corresponding specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.8-100%) to 95.3% (95% CI 94.7-95.9%). An increase of 0.1 °F in individual mean body temperature on the same day as specimen collection was associated with 1.11 increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (95% CI 1.06-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first, to our knowledge, that examines the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of daily temperature screening in a prospective cohort during an infectious disease outbreak, and the only study to assess these strategies in a university population. Daily temperature monitoring was feasible and acceptable; however, the majority of potentially infectious individuals were not detected by temperature monitoring, suggesting that temperature screening is insufficient as a primary means of detection to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Piloting an integrated SARS-CoV-2 testing and data system for outbreak containment among college students: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colleges and universities across the country are struggling to develop strategies for effective control of COVID-19 transmission as students return to campus. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a prospective cohort study with students living on or near the UC Berkeley campus from June 1st through August 18th, 2020 with the goal of providing guidance for campus reopening in the safest possible manner. In this cohort, we piloted an alternative testing model to provide access to low-barrier, high-touch testing and augment student-driven testing with data-driven adaptive surveillance that targets higher-risk students and triggers testing notifications based on reported symptoms, exposures, or other relevant information. A total of 2,180 students enrolled in the study, 51% of them undergraduates. Overall, 6,247 PCR tests were administered to 2,178 students over the two-month period. Overall test positivity rate was 0.9%; 2.6% of students tested positive. Uptake and acceptability of regular symptom and exposure surveys was high; 98% of students completed at least one survey, and average completion rate was 67% (Median: 74%, IQR: 39%) for daily reporting of symptoms and 68% (Median: 75%, IQR: 40%) for weekly reporting of exposures. Of symptom-triggered tests, 5% were PCR-positive; of exposure-triggered tests, 10% were PCR-positive. The integrated study database augmented traditional contact tracing during an outbreak; 17 potentially exposed students were contacted the following day and sent testing notifications. At study end, 81% of students selected their desire "to contribute to UC Berkeley's response to COVID-19" as a reason for their participation in the Safe Campus study. CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the synergy created by bringing together a student-friendly, harm reduction approach to COVID-19 testing with an integrated data system and analytics. We recommend the use of a confidential, consequence-free, incentive-based daily symptom and exposure reporting system, coupled with low-barrier, easy access, no stigma testing. Testing should be implemented alongside a system that integrates multiple data sources to effectively trigger testing notifications to those at higher risk of infection and encourages students to come in for low-barrier testing when needed.