Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(10): e0274946, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065127

ABSTRACT

While risk of fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is considered low, there is limited environmental data within households. This January-April 2021 investigation describes frequency and types of surfaces positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) among residences with ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associations of household characteristics with surface RT-PCR and viable virus positivity. Of 1232 samples from 124 households, 27.8% (n = 342) were RT-PCR positive with nightstands (44.1%) and pillows (40.9%) most frequently positive. SARS-CoV-2 lineage, documented household transmission, greater number of infected persons, shorter interval between illness onset and sampling, total household symptoms, proportion of infected persons ≤12 years old, and persons exhibiting upper respiratory symptoms or diarrhea were associated with more positive surfaces. Viable virus was isolated from 0.2% (n = 3 samples from one household) of all samples. This investigation suggests that while SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces is common, fomite transmission risk in households is low.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Colorado , Humans , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
2.
PloS one ; 17(10), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2058466

ABSTRACT

While risk of fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is considered low, there is limited environmental data within households. This January—April 2021 investigation describes frequency and types of surfaces positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) among residences with ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associations of household characteristics with surface RT-PCR and viable virus positivity. Of 1232 samples from 124 households, 27.8% (n = 342) were RT-PCR positive with nightstands (44.1%) and pillows (40.9%) most frequently positive. SARS-CoV-2 lineage, documented household transmission, greater number of infected persons, shorter interval between illness onset and sampling, total household symptoms, proportion of infected persons ≤12 years old, and persons exhibiting upper respiratory symptoms or diarrhea were associated with more positive surfaces. Viable virus was isolated from 0.2% (n = 3 samples from one household) of all samples. This investigation suggests that while SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces is common, fomite transmission risk in households is low.

3.
Vaccine ; 40(33): 4845-4855, 2022 08 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915068

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. However, evidence is emerging on the degree of protection across variants and in high-transmission settings. To better understand the protection afforded by vaccination specifically in a high-transmission setting, we examined household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during a period of high community incidence with predominant SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant, among vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts. METHODS: We conducted a household transmission investigation in San Diego County, California, and Denver, Colorado, during January-April 2021. Households were enrolled if they had at least one person with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected nasopharyngeal swabs, blood, demographic information, and vaccination history from all consenting household members. We compared infection risks (IRs), RT-PCR cycle threshold values, SARS-CoV-2 culture results, and antibody statuses among vaccinated and unvaccinated household contacts. RESULTS: We enrolled 493 individuals from 138 households. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was identified from 121/138 households (88%). The most common variants were Alpha (75/121, 62%) and Epsilon (19/121, 16%). There were no households with discordant lineages among household members. One fully vaccinated secondary case was symptomatic (13%); the other 5 were asymptomatic (87%). Among unvaccinated secondary cases, 105/108 (97%) were symptomatic. Among 127 households with a single primary case, the IR for household contacts was 45% (146/322; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 40-51%). The observed IR was higher in unvaccinated (130/257, 49%, 95% CI 45-57%) than fully vaccinated contacts (6/26, 23%, 95% CI 11-42%). A lower proportion of households with a fully vaccinated primary case had secondary cases (1/5, 20%) than households with an unvaccinated primary case (66/108, 62%). CONCLUSIONS: Although SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated household contacts were reported in this high transmission setting, full vaccination protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings further support the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight the need for ongoing vaccination among eligible persons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , California/epidemiology , Colorado/epidemiology , Humans
4.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e059844, 2022 06 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902011

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the COVID-19 health information needs of older adults from ethnic minority groups in the UK. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Indian and Nepalese older adults (≥65 years), their families (≥18 years) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (≥18 years) engaging with these communities. Participants were recruited between July and December 2020 from Kent, Surrey and Sussex through community organisations. RESULTS: 24 participants took part in the study; 13 older adults, 7 family members and 4 HCPs. Thirteen participants were female, and the majority (n=17) spoke a language other than English at home. Older participants mostly lived in multigenerational households, and family and community were key for providing support and communicating about healthcare needs. Participants' knowledge of COVID-19 varied widely; some spoke confidently about the subject, while others had limited information. Language and illiteracy were key barriers to accessing health information. Participants highlighted the need for information in multiple formats and languages, and discussed the importance of culturally appropriate avenues, such as community centres and religious sites, for information dissemination. CONCLUSION: This study, undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic, provides insight into how health information can be optimised for ethnic minority older adults in terms of content, format and cultural relevance. The study highlights that health information interventions should recognise the intersection between multigenerational living, family structure, and the health and well-being of older adults, and should promote intergenerational discussion.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Minority Groups , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethnic and Racial Minorities , Ethnicity , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Qualitative Research , United Kingdom/epidemiology
5.
J Pediatr ; 247: 29-37.e7, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1873172

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the household secondary infection risk (SIR) of B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and non-Alpha lineages of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among children. STUDY DESIGN: During January to April 2021, we prospectively followed households with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected questionnaires, serial nasopharyngeal swabs for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing and whole genome sequencing, and serial blood samples for serology testing. We calculated SIRs by primary case age (pediatric vs adult), household contact age, and viral lineage. We evaluated risk factors associated with transmission and described symptom profiles among children. RESULTS: Among 36 households with pediatric primary cases, 21 (58%) had secondary infections. Among 91 households with adult primary cases, 51 (56%) had secondary infections. SIRs among pediatric and adult primary cases were 45% and 54%, respectively (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.54). SIRs among pediatric primary cases with Alpha and non-Alpha lineage were 55% and 46%, respectively (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.51-4.53). SIRs among pediatric and adult household contacts were 55% and 49%, respectively (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68-1.50). Among pediatric contacts, no significant differences in the odds of acquiring infection by demographic or household characteristics were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children and adult primary cases to household members was frequent. The risk of secondary infection was similar among child and adult household contacts. Among children, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of secondary infection was not influenced by lineage. Continued mitigation strategies (eg, masking, physical distancing, vaccination) are needed to protect at-risk groups regardless of virus lineage circulating in communities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , California , Child , Colorado/epidemiology , Humans
6.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(7): 701-709, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1825745

ABSTRACT

Importance: As self-collected home antigen tests become widely available, a better understanding of their performance during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of home antigen tests compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture by days from illness onset, as well as user acceptability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January to May 2021 in San Diego County, California, and metropolitan Denver, Colorado. The convenience sample included adults and children with RT-PCR-confirmed infection who used self-collected home antigen tests for 15 days and underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR, viral culture, and sequencing. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the daily sensitivity of home antigen tests to detect RT-PCR-confirmed cases. Secondary outcomes included the daily percentage of antigen test, RT-PCR, and viral culture results that were positive, and antigen test sensitivity compared with same-day RT-PCR and cultures. Antigen test use errors and acceptability were assessed for a subset of participants. Results: This study enrolled 225 persons with RT-PCR-confirmed infection (median [range] age, 29 [1-83] years; 117 female participants [52%]; 10 [4%] Asian, 6 [3%] Black or African American, 50 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, 3 [1%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 145 [64%] White, and 11 [5%] multiracial individuals) who completed 3044 antigen tests and 642 nasopharyngeal swabs. Antigen test sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 45%-55%) during the infectious period, 64% (95% CI, 56%-70%) compared with same-day RT-PCR, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-90%) compared with same-day cultures. Antigen test sensitivity peaked 4 days after illness onset at 77% (95% CI, 69%-83%). Antigen test sensitivity improved with a second antigen test 1 to 2 days later, particularly early in the infection. Six days after illness onset, antigen test result positivity was 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%). Almost all (216 [96%]) surveyed individuals reported that they would be more likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if home antigen tests were available over the counter. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study of home antigen tests suggest that sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was moderate compared with RT-PCR and high compared with viral culture. The results also suggest that symptomatic individuals with an initial negative home antigen test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection should test again 1 to 2 days later because test sensitivity peaked several days after illness onset and improved with repeated testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Prospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
7.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):288-289, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564846

ABSTRACT

Background In December 2020, B.1.1.7 lineage of SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in the United States and has since become the dominant lineage. Previous investigations involving B.1.1.7 suggested higher rates of transmission relative to non-B.1.1.7 lineages. We conducted a household transmission investigation to determine the secondary infection rates (SIR) of B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Methods From January–April 2021, we enrolled members of households in San Diego County, CA, and Denver, CO metropolitan area (Tri-County), with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a household member with illness onset date in the previous 10 days. CDC investigators visited households at enrollment and 14 days later at closeout to obtain demographic and clinical data and nasopharyngeal (NP) samples on all consenting household members. Interim visits, with collection of NP swabs, occurred if a participant became symptomatic during follow-up. NP samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using TaqPath™ RT-PCR test, where failure to amplify the spike protein results in S-Gene target failure (SGTF) may indicate B.1.1.7 lineage. Demographic characteristics and SIR were compared among SGTF and non-SGTF households using two-sided p-values with chi-square tests;95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with Wilson score intervals. Results 552 persons from 151 households were enrolled. 91 (60%) households were classified as SGTF, 57 (38%) non-SGTF, and 3 (2%) indeterminant. SGTF and non-SGTF households had similar sex distribution (49% female and 52% female, respectively;P=0.54) and age (median 30 years, interquartile range (IQR 14–47) and 31 years (IQR 15–45), respectively). Hispanic people accounted for 24% and 32% of enrolled members of SGTF and non-SGTF households, respectively (p=0.04). At least one secondary case occurred in 61% of SGTF and 58% of non-SGTF households (P=0.66). SIR was 52% (95%[CI] 46%-59%) for SGTF and 45% (95% CI 37%-53%) for non-SGTF households (P=0.18). Conclusion SIRs were high in both SGTF and non-SGTF households;our findings did not support an increase in SIR for SGTF relative to non-SGTF households in this setting. Sequence confirmed SARS-CoV-2 samples will provide further information on lineage specific SIRs. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL