The COVID Positive Pathway: a collaboration between public health agencies, primary care, and metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the capacity of the COVID Positive Pathway, a collaborative model of care involving the Victorian public health unit, hospital services, primary care, community organisations, and the North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network, to support people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) isolating at home. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of adults in northwest Melbourne with COVID-19, 3 August - 31 December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic and clinical characteristics, and social and welfare needs of people cared for in the Pathway, by care tier level. RESULTS: Of 1392 people referred to the Pathway by the public health unit, 858 were eligible for enrolment, and 711 consented to participation; 647 (91%) remained in the Pathway until they had recovered and isolation was no longer required. A total of 575 participants (81%) received care in primary care, mostly from their usual general practitioners; 155 people (22%) received care from hospital outreach services, and 64 (9%) needed high tier care (hospitalisation). Assistance with food and other basic supplies was required by 239 people in the Pathway (34%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID Positive Pathway is a feasible multidisciplinary, tiered model of care for people with COVID-19. About 80% of participants could be adequately supported by primary care and community organisations, allowing hospital services to be reserved for people with more severe illness or with risk factors for disease progression. The principles of this model could be applied to other health conditions if regulatory and funding barriers to information-sharing and care delivery by health care providers can be overcome.

The development of a home-based therapeutic platform for multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) accounts for 1-2% of all malignancies but is the second most common hematological malignancy. It is characterized by a proliferation of malignant plasma cells. The treatment paradigm of MM in Australia is traditionally hospital-based, complex, and costly. While MM comprises 1-2% of cancer diagnoses, it appears in the top 10 cancer diagnoses requiring hospital admission. The cumulative time spent receiving treatment is a significant burden for patients. The ability to receive treatment at home and maximize time away from hospital-based settings is a key preference for patients receiving anticancer therapies over a prolonged period of time. METHODS: The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital's combined Clinical Hematology Unit has collaborated with their Hospital in the Home departments to develop several innovative programs to address this. RESULTS: We describe our current active programs and potential developments in home-based MM therapy. CONCLUSION: We have enabled large numbers of patients to receive complex therapies in their own home and the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the pace of the roll out without any compromise in safety. We anticipate that the next raft of immunotherapies will be able to transition into the @Home treatment setting in the coming years.

Evaluation of Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Implications for Serology Testing in a Low-Prevalence Setting.

BACKGROUND: Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation. METHODS: Performance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). RESULTS: Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%-60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%-100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%-68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%-96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%-97.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.