Online dashboards for SARS-CoV-2 wastewater data need standard best practices: An environmental health communication agenda.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the benefits of wastewater surveillance to supplement clinical data. Numerous online information dashboards have been rapidly, and typically independently, developed to communicate environmental surveillance data to public health officials and the public. In this study, we review dashboards presenting SARS-CoV-2 wastewater data and propose a path toward harmonization and improved risk communication. A list of 127 dashboards representing 27 countries was compiled. The variability was high and encompassed aspects including the graphics used for data presentation (e.g., line/bar graphs, maps, and tables), log versus linear scale, and 96 separate ways of labeling SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations. Globally, dashboard presentations also differed by region. Approximately half of the dashboards presented clinical case data, and 25% presented variant monitoring. Only 30% of dashboards provided downloadable source data. While any single dashboard is likely useful in its own context and locality, the high variation across dashboards at best prevents optimal use of wastewater surveillance data on a broader geographical scale and at worst could lead to risk communication issues and the potential for public health miscommunication. There is a great opportunity to improve scientific communication through the adoption of uniform data presentation conventions, standards, and best practices in this field.

Real-world utilization of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing in RNA positive patients across the United States.

BACKGROUND: As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States. METHODS: Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets-limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources-a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.

Real-world performance of SARS-Cov-2 serology tests in the United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation. METHODS: Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters. RESULTS: A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets. CONCLUSION: Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Standards to support an enduring capability in wastewater surveillance for public health: Where are we?

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a wide range of public health system challenges for infectious disease surveillance. The discovery that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was shed in feces and can be characterized using PCR-based testing of sewage samples offers new possibilities and challenges for wastewater surveillance (WWS). However, WWS standardization of practices is needed to provide actionable data for a public health response. A workshop was convened consisting of academic, federal government, and industry stakeholders. The objective was to review WWS sampling protocols, testing methods, analyses, and data interpretation approaches for WWS employed nationally and identify opportunities for standardizing practices, including the development of documentary standards or reference materials in the case of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. Other WWS potential future threats to public health were also discussed. Several aspects of WWS were considered and each offers the opportunity for standards development. These areas included sampling strategies, analytical methods, and data reporting practices. Each of these areas converged on a common theme, the challenge of results comparability across facilities and jurisdictions. For sampling, the consensus solution was the development of documentary standards to guide appropriate sampling practices. In contrast, the predominant opportunity for analytical methods was reference material development, such as PCR-based standards and surrogate recovery controls. For data reporting practices, the need for establishing the minimal required metadata, a metadata vocabulary, and standardizing data units of measure including measurement threshold definitions was discussed. Beyond SARS-CoV-2 testing, there was general agreement that the WWS platform will continue to be a valuable tool for a wide range of public health threats and that future cross-sector engagements are needed to guide an enduring WWS capability.

Trends in COVID-19 patient characteristics in a large electronic health record database in the United States: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) databases provide an opportunity to facilitate characterization and trends in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 were identified based on an ICD-10 diagnosis code for COVID-19 (U07.1) and/or a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral lab result from January 2020 to November 2020. Patients were characterized in terms of demographics, healthcare utilization, clinical comorbidities, therapies, laboratory results, and procedures/care received, including critical care, intubation/ventilation, and occurrence of death were described, overall and by month. RESULTS: There were 393,773 patients with COVID-19 and 56,996 with a COVID-19 associated hospitalization. A greater percentage of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 relative to all COVID-19 cases were older, male, African American, and lived in the Northeast and South. The most common comorbidities before admission/infection date were hypertension (40.8%), diabetes (29.5%), and obesity (23.8%), and the most common diagnoses during hospitalization were pneumonia (59.6%), acute respiratory failure (44.8%), and dyspnea (28.0%). A total of 85.7% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had CRP values > 10 mg/L, 75.5% had fibrinogen values > 400 mg/dL, and 76.8% had D-dimer values > 250 ng/mL. Median values for platelets, CRP, lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, and fibrinogen tended to decrease from January-March to November. The use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine during hospitalization peaked by March (71.2%) and was used rarely by May (5.1%) and less than 1% afterwards, while the use of remdesivir had increased by May (10.0%) followed by dexamethasone by June (27.7%). All-cause mortality was 3.2% overall and 15.0% among those hospitalized; 21.0% received critical care and 16.0% received intubation/ventilation/ECMO. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes US patients with COVID-19 and their management during hospitalization over the first eleven months of this disease pandemic.

Predictors of critical care, mechanical ventilation, and mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in an electronic health record database.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on risk factors for serious outcomes and death from COVID-19 among patients representative of the U.S. POPULATION: The objective of this study was to determine risk factors for critical care, ventilation, and death among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a cohort study using data from Optum's longitudinal COVID-19 electronic health record database derived from a network of healthcare provider organizations across the US. The study included patients with confirmed COVID-19 (presence of ICD-10-CM code U07.1 and/or positive SARS-CoV-2 test) between January 2020 and November 2020. Patient characteristics and clinical variables at start of hospitalization were evaluated for their association with subsequent serious outcomes (critical care, mechanical ventilation, and death) using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression, adjusted for demographic variables. RESULTS: Among 56,996 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (49.5% male and 72.4% ≥ 50 years), 11,967 received critical care, 9136 received mechanical ventilation, and 8526 died. The median duration of hospitalization was 6 days (IQR: 4, 11), and this was longer among patients that experienced an outcome: 11 days (IQR: 6, 19) for critical care, 15 days (IQR: 8, 24) for mechanical ventilation, and 10 days (IQR: 5, 17) for death. Dyspnea and hypoxemia were the most prevalent symptoms and both were associated with serious outcomes in adjusted models. Additionally, temperature, C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, and oxygen saturation measured during hospitalization were predictors of serious outcomes as were several in-hospital diagnoses. The strongest associations were observed for acute respiratory failure (critical care: OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 5.99-6.63; ventilation: OR, 8.55; 95% CI, 8.02-9.11; death: OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 3.17-3.55) and sepsis (critical care: OR, 4.59; 95% CI, 4.39-4.81; ventilation: OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 5.00-5.53; death: OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 3.92-4.38). Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers during hospitalization were inversely associated with death (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: We identified several clinical characteristics associated with receipt of critical care, mechanical ventilation, and death among COVID-19 patients. Future studies into the mechanisms that lead to severe COVID-19 disease are warranted.

129Xe MRI as a measure of clinical disease severity for pediatric asthma.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of regional lung ventilation with hyperpolarized 129Xe magnetic resonance imaging (129Xe MRI) in pediatric asthma is poised to advance our understanding of disease mechanisms and pathophysiology in a disorder with diverse clinical phenotypes. 129Xe MRI has not been investigated in a pediatric asthma cohort. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that 129Xe MRI is feasible and can demonstrate ventilation defects that relate to and predict clinical severity in a pediatric asthma cohort. METHODS: Thirty-seven children (13 with severe asthma, 8 with mild/moderate asthma, 16 age-matched healthy controls) aged 6 to 17 years old were imaged with 129Xe MRI. Ventilation defect percentage (VDP) and image reader score were calculated and compared with clinical measures at baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: Children with asthma had higher VDP (P = .002) and number of defects per image slice (defects/slice) (P = .0001) than children without asthma. Children with clinically severe asthma had significantly higher VDP and number of defects/slice than healthy controls. Children with asthma who had a higher number of defects/slice had a higher rate of health care utilization (r = 0.48; P = .03) and oral corticosteroid use (r = 0.43; P = .05) at baseline. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the VDP and number of defects/slice were predictive of increased health care utilization, asthma, and severe asthma. VDP correlated with FEV1 (r = -0.35; P = .04) and FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio (r = -0.41; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: 129Xe MRI correlates with asthma severity, health care utilization, and oral corticosteroid use. Because delineation of clinical severity is often difficult in children, 129Xe MRI may be an important biomarker for severity, with potential to identify children at higher risk for exacerbations and improve outcomes.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Pulmonary Rehabilitation for COVID-19.

This analysis extrapolates information from previous studies and experiences to bring physical medicine and rehabilitation perspective and intervention to the multidisciplinary treatment of COVID-19. The purpose of pulmonary rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients is to improve symptoms of dyspnea, relieve anxiety, reduce complications, minimize disability, preserve function, and improve quality of life. Pulmonary rehabilitation during the acute management of COVID-19 should be considered when possible and safe and may include nutrition, airway, posture, clearance technique, oxygen supplementation, breathing exercises, stretching, manual therapy, and physical activity. Given the possibility of long-term disability, outpatient posthospitalization pulmonary rehabilitation may be considered in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Weathering the Storm: Managing Older Adults With Breast Cancer Amid COVID-19 and Beyond.

Caring for older patients with breast cancer presents unique clinical considerations because of preexisting and competing comorbidity, the potential for treatment-related toxicity, and the consequent impact on functional status. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment decision making for older patients is especially challenging and encourages us to refocus our treatment priorities. While we work to avoid treatment delays and maintain therapeutic benefit, we also need to minimize the risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposures, myelosuppression, general chemotherapy toxicity, and functional decline. Herein, we propose multidisciplinary care considerations for the aging patient with breast cancer, with the goal to promote a team-based, multidisciplinary treatment approach during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. These considerations remain relevant as we navigate the "new normal" for the approximately 30% of breast cancer patients aged 70 years and older who are diagnosed in the United States annually and for the thousands of older patients living with recurrent and/or metastatic disease.