Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
4.
J Infect Dis ; 225(3): 367-373, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672201

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of current or past coronavirus disease 2019 in skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents is unknown because of asymptomatic infection and constrained testing capacity early in the pandemic. We conducted a seroprevalence survey to determine a more comprehensive prevalence of past coronavirus disease 2019 in Los Angeles County SNF residents and staff members. METHODS: We recruited participants from 24 facilities; participants were requested to submit a nasopharyngeal swab sample for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and a serum sample for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All participants were cross-referenced with our surveillance database to identify persons with prior positive SARS-CoV-2 results. RESULTS: From 18 August to 24 September 2020, we enrolled 3305 participants (1340 residents and 1965 staff members). Among 856 residents providing serum samples, 362 (42%) had current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 346 serology-positive residents, 199 (58%) did not have a documented prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. Among 1806 staff members providing serum, 454 (25%) had current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 447 serology-positive staff members, 353 (79%) did not have a documented prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. CONCLUSIONS: Past testing practices and policies missed a substantial number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in SNF residents and staff members.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel , Humans , Los Angeles/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Skilled Nursing Facilities
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(34): 1170-1176, 2021 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374687

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccines fully approved or currently authorized for use through Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration are critical tools for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic; however, even with highly effective vaccines, a proportion of fully vaccinated persons will become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). To characterize postvaccination infections, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) used COVID-19 surveillance and California Immunization Registry 2 (CAIR2) data to describe age-adjusted infection and hospitalization rates during May 1-July 25, 2021, by vaccination status. Whole genome sequencing (WGS)-based SARS-CoV-2 lineages and cycle threshold (Ct) values from qualitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for two SARS-CoV-2 gene targets, including the nucleocapsid (N) protein gene region and the open reading frame 1 ab (ORF1ab) polyprotein gene region,* were reported for a convenience sample of specimens. Among 43,127 reported SARS-CoV-2 infections in Los Angeles County residents aged ≥16 years, 10,895 (25.3%) were in fully vaccinated persons, 1,431 (3.3%) were in partially vaccinated persons, and 30,801 (71.4%) were in unvaccinated persons. Much lower percentages of fully vaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 were hospitalized (3.2%), were admitted to an intensive care unit (0.5%), and required mechanical ventilation (0.2%) compared with partially vaccinated persons (6.2%, 1.0%, and 0.3%, respectively) and unvaccinated persons (7.6%, 1.5%, and 0.5%, respectively) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). On July 25, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among unvaccinated persons was 4.9 times and the hospitalization rate was 29.2 times the rates among fully vaccinated persons. During May 1-July 25, the percentages of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant infections estimated from 6,752 samples with lineage data increased among fully vaccinated persons (from 8.6% to 91.2%), partially vaccinated persons (from 0% to 88.1%), and unvaccinated persons (from 8.2% to 87.1%). In May, there were differences in median Ct values by vaccination status; however, by July, no differences were detected among specimens from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated persons by gene targets. These infection and hospitalization rate data indicate that authorized vaccines were protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 during a period when transmission of the Delta variant was increasing. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination, in coordination with other prevention strategies, are critical to preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Los Angeles/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Young Adult
7.
J Hosp Med ; 16(8): 480-483, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335420

ABSTRACT

We aimed to determine the percentage of COVID-19- associated hospitalizations reported to Los Angeles County (LAC) Public Health that might have been misclassified because of incidentally detected SARS-CoV-2. We retrospectively reviewed medical records from a randomly selected set of hospital discharges reported to LAC Public Health from August to October 2020 for a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Among the 13,813 discharges from 85 hospitals reported to LAC Public Health as COVID-19-associated hospitalizations from August to October 2020, 346 were randomly selected and reviewed. SARS-CoV-2 detection was incidental to the reason for hospitalization in 12% (95% confidence limit, 9%-16%) of COVID-19 classified hospital discharges. Adjusting COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates to account for incidental SARS-CoV-2 detection could help public health policymakers and emergency preparedness personnel improve resource planning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitalization , Humans , Los Angeles/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(Suppl 1): S77-S80, 2021 07 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315690

ABSTRACT

A suspected outbreak of influenza A and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at a long-term care facility in Los Angeles County was, months later, determined to not involve influenza. To prevent inadvertent transmission of infections, facilities should use highly specific influenza diagnostics and follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that specifically address infection control challenges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Long-Term Care , SARS-CoV-2
9.
J Med Virol ; 93(9): 5396-5404, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1209673

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pooled testing is a potentially efficient alternative strategy for COVID-19 testing in congregate settings. We evaluated the utility and cost-savings of pooled testing based on imperfect test performance and potential dilution effect due to pooling and created a practical calculator for online use. METHODS: We developed a 2-stage pooled testing model accounting for dilution. The model was applied to hypothetical scenarios of 100 specimens collected during a one-week time-horizon cycle for varying levels of COVID-19 prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity, and to 338 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles) (data collected and analyzed in 2020). RESULTS: Optimal pool sizes ranged from 1 to 12 in instances where there is a least one case in the batch of specimens. 40% of Los Angeles SNFs had more than one case triggering a response-testing strategy. The median number (minimum; maximum) of tests performed per facility were 56 (14; 356) for a pool size of 4, 64 (13; 429) for a pool size of 10, and 52 (11; 352) for an optimal pool size strategy among response-testing facilities. The median costs of tests in response-testing facilities were $8250 ($1100; $46,100), $6000 ($1340; $37,700), $6820 ($1260; $43,540), and $5960 ($1100; $37,380) when adopting individual testing, a pooled testing strategy using pool sizes of 4, 10, and optimal pool size, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled testing is an efficient strategy for congregate settings with a low prevalence of COVID-19. Dilution as a result of pooling can lead to erroneous false-negative results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Models, Statistical , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Specimen Handling/methods , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , California/epidemiology , False Negative Reactions , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Prevalence , Sensitivity and Specificity , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Specimen Handling/economics
10.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 27(3): 233-239, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1150041

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To more comprehensively estimate COVID-19-related mortality in Los Angeles County by determining excess all-cause mortality and pneumonia, influenza, or COVID (PIC) mortality. DESIGN: We reviewed vital statistics data to identify deaths registered in Los Angeles County between March 15, 2020, and August 15, 2020. Deaths with an ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) code for pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19 listed as an immediate or underlying cause of death were classified as PIC deaths. Expected deaths were calculated using negative binomial regression. Excess mortality was determined by subtracting the expected from the observed number of weekly deaths. The Department of Public Health conducts surveillance for COVID-19-associated deaths: persons who died of nontraumatic/nonaccidental causes within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test result were classified as confirmed COVID-19 deaths. Deaths without a reported positive SARS-Cov-2 polymerase chain reaction result were classified as probable COVID-19 deaths if COVID-19 was listed on their death certificate or the death occurred 60 to 90 days of a positive test. We compared excess PIC deaths with the number of confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths ascertained by surveillance. SETTING: Los Angeles County. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of Los Angeles County who died. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Excess mortality. RESULTS: There were 7208 excess all-cause and 5128 excess PIC deaths during the study period. The Department of Public Health also reported 5160 confirmed and 323 probable COVID-19-associated deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The number of excess PIC deaths estimated by our model was approximately equal to the number of confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths identified by surveillance. This suggests our surveillance definition for confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths might be sufficiently sensitive for capturing the true burden of deaths caused directly or indirectly by COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Influenza, Human/mortality , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia/mortality , Population Surveillance , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cities/epidemiology , Cities/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Los Angeles/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
11.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0238342, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-740403

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Contact Tracing , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Child , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Family Characteristics , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel-Related Illness , United States , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL