Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Front Public Health ; 11: 1058644, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2294395

ABSTRACT

Background: Though the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) home testing kits is increasing, individuals who use home tests are not accounted for in publicly reported COVID-19 metrics. As the pandemic and the methods for tracking cases evolve, it is critical to understand who the individuals excluded are, due to their use of home testing kits, relative to those included in the reported metrics. Methods: Five New York State databases were linked to investigate trends in home-tested COVID-19 cases vs. laboratory-confirmed cases from November 2021 to April 2022. Frequency distributions, multivariate logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare the characteristics of the home-tested and laboratory-tested people. Results: Of the 591,227 confirmed COVID-19 cases interviewed, 71,531 (12%) of them underwent home tests, 515,001 (87%) underwent laboratory tests, and 5,695 (1%) underwent both home tests and laboratory tests during this period. Home-tested COVID-19 cases increased from only 1% in November 2021 to 22% in April 2022. Children aged 5-11 years with an aOR of 3.74 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.96) and adolescents aged 12-17 years with an aOR of 3.24 (95% CI: 3.07, 3.43) were more likely to undergo only home tests compared to adults aged 65 years and above. On the one hand, those who were "boosted" (aOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.82, 1.93), those in K-12 school settings (aOR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.27, 2.40), or those who were possibly infected by a household member (aOR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22) were more likely to report home testing instead of laboratory testing. On the other hand, individuals who were hospitalized (aOR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.06), who had underlying conditions (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.87), who were pregnant (aOR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.86), and who were Hispanic (aOR 0.50: 95% CI: 0.48, 0.53), Asian (aOR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.34), or Black (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.42, 047) were less likely to choose home testing over laboratory testing. Conclusion: The percentage of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 who used only home testing kits continues to rise. People who used only home testing were less likely to be hospitalized and were those with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disease given factors such as age, vaccination status, and underlying conditions. Thus, the official COVID-19 metrics primarily reflected individuals with severe illness or the potential for severe illness. There may be racial and ethnic differences in the use of home testing vs. laboratory testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Self-Testing , Adolescent , Child , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hispanic or Latino , New York City/epidemiology , Pandemics , Racial Groups , Aged , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Black or African American
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(8): e2227995, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1999801

ABSTRACT

Importance: Serosurveys can be used to monitor population-level dynamics of COVID-19 and vaccination. Dried blood spots (DBSs) collected from infants contain maternal IgG antibodies and are useful for serosurveys of individuals recently giving birth. Objectives: To examine SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in pregnant individuals in New York State, identify associations between SARS-CoV-2 antibody status and maternal and infant characteristics, and detect COVID-19 vaccination among this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A population-based, repeated cross-sectional study was conducted to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) IgG antibodies. Deidentified DBS samples and data submitted to the New York State Newborn Screening Program between November 1, 2019, and November 30, 2021, were analyzed. Exposures: Prenatal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 N and S antigens was measured using a microsphere immunoassay. Data were analyzed by geographic region and compared with reported COVID-19 cases and vaccinations among reproductive-aged females (15-44 years of age). Data were stratified by infant birth weight, gestational age, maternal age, and multiple birth status. Results: Dried blood spot samples from 415 293 infants (median [IQR] age, 1.04 [1.00-1.20] days; 210 805 [51.1%] male) were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The first known antibody-positive infant in New York State was born on March 29, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence reflected statewide and regional COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged females in the prevaccine period. From February through November 2021, S seroprevalence was strongly correlated with cumulative vaccinations in each New York State region and in the state overall (rs = 0.92-1.00, P ≤ .001). S and N seroprevalences were significantly lower in newborns with very low birth weight (720 [14.8%] for S and 138 [2.8%] for N, P < .001) and low birth weight (5160 [19.3%] for S and 1233 [4.6%] for N, P = .009) compared with newborns with normal birth weight (77 116 [20.1%] for S and 19 872 [5.2%] for N). Lower N and higher S seroprevalences were observed in multiple births (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; P = .002 for N and OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.31; P < .001 for S) vs single births and for maternal age older than 30 years (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001 for N and OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; P < .001 for S) vs younger than 20 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, seroprevalence in newborn DBS samples reflected COVID-19 case fluctuations and vaccinations among reproductive-aged women during the study period. These results demonstrate the utility of using newborn DBS testing to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in pregnant individuals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antibodies, Viral , Birth Weight , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , New York/epidemiology , Parturition , Pregnancy , Seroepidemiologic Studies
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(7): 243-248, 2022 Feb 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1689716

ABSTRACT

During November 19-21, 2021, an indoor convention (event) in New York City (NYC), was attended by approximately 53,000 persons from 52 U.S. jurisdictions and 30 foreign countries. In-person registration for the event began on November 18, 2021. The venue was equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, and attendees were required to wear a mask indoors and have documented receipt of at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.* On December 2, 2021, the Minnesota Department of Health reported the first case of community-acquired COVID-19 in the United States caused by the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant in a person who had attended the event (1). CDC collaborated with state and local health departments to assess event-associated COVID-19 cases and potential exposures among U.S.-based attendees using data from COVID-19 surveillance systems and an anonymous online attendee survey. Among 34,541 attendees with available contact information, surveillance data identified test results for 4,560, including 119 (2.6%) persons from 16 jurisdictions with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Most (4,041 [95.2%]), survey respondents reported always wearing a mask while indoors at the event. Compared with test-negative respondents, test-positive respondents were more likely to report attending bars, karaoke, or nightclubs, and eating or drinking indoors near others for at least 15 minutes. Among 4,560 attendees who received testing, evidence of widespread transmission during the event was not identified. Genomic sequencing of 20 specimens identified the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (AY.25 and AY.103 sublineages) in 15 (75%) cases, and the Omicron variant (BA.1 sublineage) in five (25%) cases. These findings reinforce the importance of implementing multiple, simultaneous prevention measures, such as ensuring up-to-date vaccination, mask use, physical distancing, and improved ventilation in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission, during large, indoor events.†.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Mass Gatherings , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance , United States/epidemiology
4.
N Engl J Med ; 386(2): 116-127, 2022 01 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557598

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Population-based data from the United States on the effectiveness of the three coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines currently authorized by the Food and Drug Administration are limited. Whether declines in effectiveness are due to waning immunity, the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), or other causes is unknown. METHODS: We used data for 8,690,825 adults in New York State to assess the effectiveness of the BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and hospitalization with Covid-19 (i.e., Covid-19 diagnosed at or after admission). We compared cohorts defined according to vaccine product received, age, and month of full vaccination with age-specific unvaccinated cohorts by linking statewide testing, hospital, and vaccine registry databases. We assessed vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 from May 1 through September 3, 2021, and against hospitalization with Covid-19 from May 1 through August 31, 2021. RESULTS: There were 150,865 cases of Covid-19 and 14,477 hospitalizations with Covid-19. During the week of May 1, 2021, when the delta variant made up 1.8% of the circulating variants, the median vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 was 91.3% (range, 84.1 to 97.0) for BNT162b2, 96.9% (range, 93.7 to 98.0) for mRNA-1273, and 86.6% (range, 77.8 to 89.7) for Ad26.COV2.S. Subsequently, effectiveness declined contemporaneously in all cohorts, from a median of 93.4% (range, 77.8 to 98.0) during the week of May 1 to a nadir of 73.5% (range, 13.8 to 90.0) around July 10, when the prevalence of the delta variant was 85.3%. By the week of August 28, when the prevalence of the delta variant was 99.6%, the effectiveness was 74.2% (range, 63.4 to 86.8). Effectiveness against hospitalization with Covid-19 among adults 18 to 64 years of age remained almost exclusively greater than 86%, with no apparent time trend. Effectiveness declined from May through August among persons 65 years of age or older who had received BNT162b2 (from 94.8 to 88.6%) or mRNA-1273 (from 97.1 to 93.7%). The effectiveness of Ad26.COV2.S was lower than that of the other vaccines, with no trend observed over time (range, 80.0 to 90.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of the three vaccines against Covid-19 declined after the delta variant became predominant. The effectiveness against hospitalization remained high, with modest declines limited to BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 recipients 65 years of age or older.


Subject(s)
2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Ad26COVS1 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Vaccine Efficacy , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Humans , Incidence , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
5.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(1): e0013421, 2021 09 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1329041

ABSTRACT

Early in the pandemic when diagnostic testing was not widely available, serosurveys played an important role in estimating the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations. Dried blood spots (DBS), which can be collected in nonclinical settings, provide a minimally invasive alternative to serum for serosurveys. We developed a Luminex-based SARS-CoV-2 microsphere immunoassay (MIA) for DBS that detects IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid (N) and spike subunit 1 (S1) antigens. The assay uses a 384-well plate format and automated liquid handlers for high-throughput capacity. Specificity was assessed using a large collection of prepandemic DBS and well-characterized sera. Sensitivity was analyzed using serology data from New York State SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey testing and matched diagnostic test results. For DBS, the specificity was 99.5% for the individual N and S1 antigens. Median fluorescence intensity (MFI) values for DBS and paired sera showed a strong positive correlation for N (R2 = 0.91) and S1 (R2 = 0.93). Sensitivity, assessed from 1,134 DBS with prior laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, ranged from 83% at 0 to 20 days to 95% at 61 to 90 days after a positive test. When stratified using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptom data, sensitivity ranged from 90 to 96% for symptomatic and 77 to 91% for asymptomatic individuals. For 8,367 health care workers reporting detailed symptom data, MFI values were significantly higher for all symptom categories. Our results indicate that the SARS-CoV-2 IgG DBS MIA is sensitive, specific, and well-suited for large population-based serosurveys. The ability to readily modify and multiplex antigens is important for ongoing assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses to emerging variants and vaccines. IMPORTANCE Testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been used to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 in different populations. Seroprevalence studies, or serosurveys, were especially useful during the early phase of the pandemic when diagnostic testing was not widely available, and the resulting seroprevalence estimates played an important role in public health decision making. To achieve meaningful results, antibody tests used for serosurveys should be accurate and accessible to diverse populations. We developed a test that detects antibodies to two different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in dried blood spots (DBS). DBS require only a simple fingerstick and can be collected in nonclinical settings. We conducted a robust validation study and have demonstrated that our test is both sensitive and specific. Furthermore, we demonstrated that our test is suitable for large-scale serosurveys by testing over 56,000 DBS collected in a variety of community-based venues in New York State during the spring of 2020.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Microspheres , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Female , Humans , Male , New York , Pandemics , Patient Care Team , Public Health , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Specimen Handling
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL