The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on Testing for and Diagnoses of HIV and Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections in Oregon.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing accessibility. We sought to assess the longer-term impacts of COVID-19 on HIV and STI testing and diagnosis in Oregon. METHODS: First, we examined HIV, Neisseria gonorrhoeae / Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), and syphilis tests conducted at the Oregon State Public Health Laboratory (public sector) and a large commercial laboratory (private sector) and HIV, N. gonorrhoeae , CT, and primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis diagnoses in Oregon from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. We compared monthly testing and diagnosis rates in 5 prespecified periods: pre-COVID-19 (January 2019-February 2020), stay-at-home order (March 2020-May 2020), reopening (June 2020-December 2020), vaccine availability (January 2021-June 2021), and Delta/early Omicron spread (July 2021-December 2021). Second, we calculated the number of HIV and STI diagnoses per test in the public and private sectors. Finally, we used seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to predict expected HIV and STI diagnoses for comparison to those observed. RESULTS: Both public and private sector HIV and bacterial STI testing fell to nadirs in April 2020 with incomplete recovery to 2019 levels by the close of 2021. Compared with pre-COVID-19, public sector and private sector testing was significantly lower in all subsequent periods. Compared with pre-COVID-19, P&S syphilis cases were 52%, 75%, and 124% greater in the reopening, vaccine availability, and Delta/early Omicron periods, respectively. From March 2020 to December 2021, we observed an excess of P&S syphilis cases (+37.1%; 95% confidence interval, 22.2% to 52.1%) and a deficit in CT cases (-10.7%; 95% confidence interval, -15.4% to -6.0%). CONCLUSIONS: By December 2021, HIV/STI testing had not recovered to pre-COVID-19 levels, and HIV/STI continues to be underdiagnosed. Despite decreased testing, P&S syphilis cases have increased substantially.

Evolution of Specimen Self-Collection in the COVID-19 Era: Implications for Population Health Management of Infectious Disease.

Laboratory testing is an important component in the diagnosis of respiratory tract infections such as with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, specimen collection not only risks exposure of health care workers and other patients to infection, but also necessitates use of personal protective equipment that may be in short supply during periods of heightened disease activity. Self-collection of nasal or oropharyngeal swabs offers an alternative to address these drawbacks. Although studies in the past decade have demonstrated the utility of this approach for respiratory infections, it has not been widely adopted in routine clinical practice. The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has focused attention on the need for safe, convenient, timely, and scalable methods for collecting upper respiratory specimens for testing. The goals of this article are to highlight the literature regarding self-collected nasal or oropharyngeal specimens for respiratory pathogen testing; discuss the role of self-collection in helping prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease from infected patients and facilitating a shift toward "virtual" medicine or telemedicine; and describe the current and future state of self-collection for infectious agents, and the impacts these approaches can have on population health management and disease diagnosis and prevention.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Targeting Nucleocapsid or Spike Protein by Four High-Throughput Immunoassays Authorized for Emergency Use.

A total of 1,200 serum samples that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody using the Abbott Architect immunoassay targeting the nucleocapsid protein were run in 3 SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays targeting spike proteins (DiaSorin Liaison, Ortho Vitros, and Euroimmun). Consensus-positive and consensus-negative interpretations were defined as qualitative agreement in at least 3 of the 4 assays. Agreement of the 4 individual assays with a consensus-negative interpretation (n = 610) ranged from 96.7% to 100%, and agreement with a consensus-positive interpretation (n = 584) ranged from 94.3% to 100%. Laboratory-developed inhibition assays were utilized to evaluate 49 consensus-negative samples that were positive in only one assay; true-positive reactivity was confirmed in only 2 of these 49 (4%) samples. These findings demonstrate very high levels of agreement among 4 SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays authorized for emergency use, regardless of antigen target or assay format. Although false-positive reactivity was identified, its occurrence was rare (no more than 1.7% of samples for a given assay).