Pandemic Demand for SARS-CoV-2 Testing Led to Critical Supply and Workforce Shortages in U.S. Clinical and Public Health Laboratories.

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented challenges to clinical and public health laboratories. While U.S. laboratories have continued striving to provide quality test results during the pandemic, the uncertainty and lack of supplies became a significant hurdle, hindering day-to-day laboratory operations and the ability to increase testing capacity for both SARS-CoV-2 and non-COVID-19 testing. In addition, long-standing laboratory workforce shortages became apparent, hindering the ability of clinical and public health laboratories to rapidly increase testing. The American Society for Microbiology, the College of American Pathologists, the National Coalition of STD Directors, and the Emerging Infections Network independently conducted surveys in 2020 and early 2021 to assess the capacity of the nation's clinical laboratories to respond to the increase in demand for testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of these surveys highlighted the shortages of crucial supplies for SARS-CoV-2 testing and supplies for other routine laboratory diagnostics, as well as a shortage of trained personnel to perform testing. The conclusions are based on communications, observations, and the survey results of the clinical laboratory, public health, and professional organizations represented here. While the results of each survey considered separately may not be representative of the entire community, when considered together they provide remarkably similar results, further validating the findings and highlighting the importance of laboratory supply chains and the personnel capable of performing these tests for any response to a large-scale public health emergency.

Use of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Tests by US Infectious Disease Physicians: Results of an Emerging Infections Network Survey, March 2022.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States-based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Methods: In March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered. Results: Of 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post-COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making. Conclusions: Practicing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses to the Ancestral SARS-CoV-2 Strain and Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Variants in Nursing Home Residents After Receipt of Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine - Ohio and Rhode Island, September-November 2022.

Introduction of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in late 2020 helped to mitigate disproportionate COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in U.S. nursing homes (1); however, reduced effectiveness of monovalent vaccines during the period of Omicron variant predominance led to recommendations for booster doses with bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that include an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein component to broaden immune response and improve vaccine effectiveness against circulating Omicron variants (2). Recent studies suggest that bivalent booster doses provide substantial additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19-associated disease among immunocompetent adults who previously received only monovalent vaccines (3).* The immunologic response after receipt of bivalent boosters among nursing home residents, who often mount poor immunologic responses to vaccines, remains unknown. Serial testing of anti-spike protein antibody binding and neutralizing antibody titers in serum collected from 233 long-stay nursing home residents from the time of their primary vaccination series and including any subsequent booster doses, including the bivalent vaccine, was performed. The bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine substantially increased anti-spike and neutralizing antibody titers against Omicron sublineages, including BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses. These data, in combination with evidence of low uptake of bivalent booster vaccination among residents and staff members in nursing homes (4), support the recommendation that nursing home residents and staff members receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster dose to reduce associated morbidity and mortality (2).

Longitudinal serologic and viral testing post-SARS-CoV-2 infection and post-receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a nursing home cohort-Georgia, October 2020‒April 2021.

There are limited data describing SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses and their durability following infection and vaccination in nursing home residents. We conducted a prospective longitudinal evaluation of 11 consenting SARS-CoV-2-positive nursing home residents to evaluate the quantitative titers and durability of binding antibodies detected after SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent COVID-19 vaccination. The evaluation included nine visits over 150 days from October 25, 2020, through April 1, 2021. Visits included questionnaire administration, blood collection for serology, and paired anterior nasal specimen collection for testing by BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and viral culture. We evaluated quantitative titers of binding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post-infection and post-vaccination (beginning after the first dose of the primary series). The median age among participants was 74 years; one participant was immunocompromised. Of 10 participants with post-infection serology results, 9 (90%) had detectable Pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA antibodies, and 8 (80%) had detectable IgM antibodies. At first antibody detection post-infection, two-thirds (6/9, 67%) of participants were RT-PCR-positive, but none were culture- positive. Ten participants received vaccination; all had detectable Pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA antibodies through their final observation ≤90 days post-first dose. Post-vaccination geometric means of IgG titers were 10-200-fold higher than post-infection. Nursing home residents in this cohort mounted robust immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 post-infection and post-vaccination. The augmented antibody responses post-vaccination are potential indicators of enhanced protection that vaccination may confer on previously infected nursing home residents.

Descriptive evaluation of antibody responses to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid in a nursing home cohort-Arkansas, June-August 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immune responses in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) from nursing home residents during and after natural infection. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Nursing home. PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents. METHODS: A convenience sample of 14 SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents, enrolled 4-13 days after real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction diagnosis, were followed for 42 days. After diagnosis, plasma SARS-CoV-2-specific pan-Immunoglobulin (Ig), IgG, IgA, IgM, and neutralizing antibodies were measured at 5 time points, and GCF SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA were measured at 4 time points. RESULTS: All participants demonstrated immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among 12 phlebotomized participants, plasma was positive for pan-Ig and IgG in all 12 participants. Neutralizing antibodies were positive in 11 participants; IgM was positive in 10 participants, and IgA was positive in 9 participants. Among 14 participants with GCF specimens, GCF was positive for IgG in 13 participants and for IgA in 12 participants. Immunoglobulin responses in plasma and GCF had similar kinetics; median times to peak antibody response were similar across specimen types (4 weeks for IgG; 3 weeks for IgA). Participants with pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA detected in plasma and GCF IgG remained positive throughout this evaluation, 46-55 days after diagnosis. All participants were viral-culture negative by the first detection of antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing home residents had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in plasma and GCF after infection. Kinetics of antibodies detected in GCF mirrored those from plasma. Noninvasive GCF may be useful for detecting and monitoring immunologic responses in populations unable or unwilling to be phlebotomized.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses. CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

SARS-CoV-2 Convalescent Sera Binding and Neutralizing Antibody Concentrations Compared with COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Estimates against Symptomatic Infection.

Previous COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) studies have estimated neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations that correlate with protection from symptomatic infection; how these estimates compare to those generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear. Here, we assessed quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations using standardized SARS-CoV-2 assays on 3,067 serum specimens collected during 27 July 2020 to 27 August 2020 from COVID-19-unvaccinated persons with detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations were severalfold lower in the unvaccinated study population compared to published concentrations at 28 days postvaccination. In this convenience sample, ~88% of neutralizing and ~63 to 86% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% COVID-19 VE against symptomatic infection; ~30% of neutralizing and 1 to 14% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% COVID-19 VE. Our study not only supports observations of infection-induced immunity and current recommendations for vaccination postinfection to maximize protection against COVID-19, but also provides a large data set of pre-COVID-19 vaccination anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations that will serve as an important comparator in the current setting of vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity. As new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge and displace circulating virus strains, we recommend that standardized binding antibody assays that include spike protein-based antigens be utilized to estimate antibody concentrations correlated with protection from COVID-19. These estimates will be helpful in informing public health guidance, such as the need for additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses to prevent symptomatic infection. IMPORTANCE Although COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) studies have estimated antibody concentrations that correlate with protection from COVID-19, how these estimates compare to those generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear. We assessed quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations using standardized assays on serum specimens collected from COVID-19-unvaccinated persons with detectable antibodies. We found that most unvaccinated persons with qualitative antibody evidence of prior infection had quantitative antibody concentrations that met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% VE against COVID-19. However, only a small proportion had antibody concentrations that met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% VE, suggesting that persons with prior COVID-19 would benefit from vaccination to maximize protective antibody concentrations against COVID-19.

Clinical Course of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults with ESKD Receiving Outpatient Hemodialysis.

Background: Patients with ESKD on maintenance dialysis receive dialysis in common spaces with other patients and have a higher risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. They may have persistently or intermittently positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests after infection. We describe the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the serologic response in a convenience sample of patients with ESKD to understand the duration of infectivity. Methods: From August to November 2020, we enrolled patients on maintenance dialysis with SARS-CoV-2 infections from outpatient dialysis facilities in Atlanta, Georgia. We followed participants for approximately 42 days. We assessed COVID-19 symptoms and collected specimens. Oropharyngeal (OP), anterior nasal (AN), and saliva (SA) specimens were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, using RT-PCR, and sent for viral culture. Serology, including neutralizing antibodies, was measured in blood specimens. Results: Fifteen participants, with a median age of 58 (range, 37‒77) years, were enrolled. Median duration of RT-PCR positivity from diagnosis was 18 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8‒24 days). Ten participants had at least one, for a total of 41, positive RT-PCR specimens ≥10 days after symptoms onset. Of these 41 specimens, 21 underwent viral culture; one (5%) was positive 14 days after symptom onset. Thirteen participants developed SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, 11 of which included neutralizing antibodies. RT-PCRs remained positive after seroconversion in eight participants and after detection of neutralizing antibodies in four participants; however, all of these samples were culture negative. Conclusions: Patients with ESKD on maintenance dialysis remained persistently and intermittently SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR positive. However, of the 15 participants, only one had infectious virus, on day 14 after symptom onset. Most participants mounted an antibody response, including neutralizing antibodies. Participants continued having RT-PCR-positive results in the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, but without replication-competent virus detected.

Development and Validation of an Enzyme Immunoassay for Detection and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Salivary IgA and IgG.

Oral fluids offer a noninvasive sampling method for the detection of Abs. Quantification of IgA and IgG Abs in saliva allows studies of the mucosal and systemic immune response after natural infection or vaccination. We developed and validated an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) to detect and quantify salivary IgA and IgG Abs against the prefusion-stabilized form of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein expressed in suspension-adapted HEK-293 cells. Normalization against total Ab isotype was performed to account for specimen differences, such as collection time and sample volume. Saliva samples collected from 187 SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases enrolled in 2 cohorts and 373 prepandemic saliva samples were tested. The sensitivity of both EIAs was high (IgA, 95.5%; IgG, 89.7%) without compromising specificity (IgA, 99%; IgG, 97%). No cross-reactivity with endemic coronaviruses was observed. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 salivary IgA and IgG assays were 1.98 ng/ml and 0.30 ng/ml, respectively. Salivary IgA and IgG Abs were detected earlier in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms than in severe cases. However, severe cases showed higher salivary Ab titers than those with a mild infection. Salivary IgA titers quickly decreased after 6 wk in mild cases but remained detectable until at least week 10 in severe cases. Salivary IgG titers remained high for all patients, regardless of disease severity. In conclusion, EIAs for both IgA and IgG had high specificity and sensitivity for the confirmation of current or recent SARS-CoV-2 infections and evaluation of the IgA and IgG immune response.

Repeated antigen testing among severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive nursing home residents.

Repeated antigen testing of 12 severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive nursing home residents using Abbott BinaxNOW identified 9 of 9 (100%) culture-positive specimens up to 6 days after initial positive test. Antigen positivity lasted 2-24 days. Antigen positivity might last beyond the infectious period, but it was reliable in residents with evidence of early infection.

Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel (RECOVER): Protocol for a Multisite Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Workers critical to emergency response and continuity of essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic are at a disproportionally high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Prospective cohort studies are needed for enhancing the understanding of the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, identifying risk factors, assessing clinical outcomes, and determining the effectiveness of vaccination. OBJECTIVE: The Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel (RECOVER) prospective cohort study was designed to estimate the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, examine the risk factors for infection and clinical spectrum of illness, and assess the effectiveness of vaccination among essential workers. METHODS: The RECOVER multisite network was initiated in August 2020 and aims to enroll 3000 health care personnel (HCP), first responders, and other essential and frontline workers (EFWs) at 6 US locations. Data on participant demographics, medical history, and vaccination history are collected at baseline and throughout the study. Active surveillance for the symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI), access of medical care, and symptom duration is performed by text messages, emails, and direct participant or medical record reports. Participants self-collect a mid-turbinate nasal swab weekly, regardless of symptoms, and 2 additional respiratory specimens at the onset of CLI. Blood is collected upon enrollment, every 3 months, approximately 28 days after a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 14 to 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine. From February 2021, household members of RT-PCR-confirmed participants are self-collecting mid-turbinate nasal swabs daily for 10 days. RESULTS: The study observation period began in August 2020 and is expected to continue through spring 2022. There are 2623 actively enrolled RECOVER participants, including 280 participants who have been found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Enrollment is ongoing at 3 of the 6 study sites. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected through the cohort are expected to provide important public health information for essential workers at high risk for occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and allow early evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/31574.

Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Related Deaths, December 2020.

In the 10 months since the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the United States on January 20, 2020 (1), approximately 13.8 million cases and 272,525 deaths have been reported in the United States. On October 30, the number of new cases reported in the United States in a single day exceeded 100,000 for the first time, and by December 2 had reached a daily high of 196,227.* With colder weather, more time spent indoors, the ongoing U.S. holiday season, and silent spread of disease, with approximately 50% of transmission from asymptomatic persons (2), the United States has entered a phase of high-level transmission where a multipronged approach to implementing all evidence-based public health strategies at both the individual and community levels is essential. This summary guidance highlights critical evidence-based CDC recommendations and sustainable strategies to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These strategies include 1) universal face mask use, 2) maintaining physical distance from other persons and limiting in-person contacts, 3) avoiding nonessential indoor spaces and crowded outdoor spaces, 4) increasing testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons, 5) promptly identifying, quarantining, and testing close contacts of persons with known COVID-19, 6) safeguarding persons most at risk for severe illness or death from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, 7) protecting essential workers with provision of adequate personal protective equipment and safe work practices, 8) postponing travel, 9) increasing room air ventilation and enhancing hand hygiene and environmental disinfection, and 10) achieving widespread availability and high community coverage with effective COVID-19 vaccines. In combination, these strategies can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, long-term sequelae or disability, and death, and mitigate the pandemic's economic impact. Consistent implementation of these strategies improves health equity, preserves health care capacity, maintains the function of essential businesses, and supports the availability of in-person instruction for kindergarten through grade 12 schools and preschool. Individual persons, households, and communities should take these actions now to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission from its current high level. These actions will provide a bridge to a future with wide availability and high community coverage of effective vaccines, when safe return to more everyday activities in a range of settings will be possible.

Performance Evaluation of Serial SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing During a Nursing Home Outbreak.

BACKGROUND: To address high COVID-19 burden in U.S. nursing homes, rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have been widely distributed in those facilities. However, performance data are lacking, especially in asymptomatic people. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing when used for facility-wide testing during a nursing home outbreak. DESIGN: A prospective evaluation involving 3 facility-wide rounds of testing where paired respiratory specimens were collected to evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared with virus culture and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Early and late infection were defined using changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold values and prior test results. SETTING: A nursing home with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: 532 paired specimens collected from 234 available residents and staff. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of positive agreement (PPA) and percentage of negative agreement (PNA) for BinaxNOW compared with RT-PCR and virus culture. RESULTS: BinaxNOW PPA with virus culture, used for detection of replication-competent virus, was 95%. However, the overall PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 69%, and PNA was 98%. When only the first positive test result was analyzed for each participant, PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 82% among 45 symptomatic people and 52% among 343 asymptomatic people. Compared with RT-PCR and virus culture, the BinaxNOW test performed well in early infection (86% and 95%, respectively) and poorly in late infection (51% and no recovered virus, respectively). LIMITATION: Accurate symptom ascertainment was challenging in nursing home residents; test performance may not be representative of testing done by nonlaboratory staff. CONCLUSION: Despite lower positive agreement compared with RT-PCR, antigen test positivity had higher agreement with shedding of replication-competent virus. These results suggest that antigen testing could be a useful tool to rapidly identify contagious people at risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 during nascent outbreaks and help reduce COVID-19 burden in nursing homes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A Comparison of Less Invasive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Diagnostic Specimens in Nursing Home Residents-Arkansas, June-August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing remains essential for early identification and clinical management of cases. We compared the diagnostic performance of 3 specimen types for characterizing SARS-CoV-2 in infected nursing home residents. METHODS: A convenience sample of 17 residents were enrolled within 15 days of first positive SARS-CoV-2 result by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and prospectively followed for 42 days. Anterior nasal swabs (AN), oropharyngeal swabs (OP), and saliva specimens (SA) were collected on the day of enrollment, every 3 days for the first 21 days, and then weekly for 21 days. Specimens were tested for presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR and replication-competent virus by viral culture. RESULTS: Comparing the 3 specimen types collected from each participant at each time point, the concordance of paired RT-PCR results ranged from 80% to 88%. After the first positive result, SA and OP were RT-PCR-positive for ≤48 days; AN were RT-PCR-positive for ≤33 days. AN had the highest percentage of RT-PCR-positive results (21/26 [81%]) when collected ≤10 days of participants' first positive result. Eleven specimens were positive by viral culture: 9 AN collected ≤19 days following first positive result and 2 OP collected ≤5 days following first positive result. CONCLUSIONS: AN, OP, and SA were effective methods for repeated testing in this population. More AN than OP were positive by viral culture. SA and OP remained RT-PCR-positive longer than AN, which could lead to unnecessary interventions if RT-PCR detection occurred after viral shedding has likely ceased.

Infectious Period of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in 17 Nursing Home Residents-Arkansas, June-August 2020.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in older adults with underlying conditions, we assessed duration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms, reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity, and culture positivity among nursing home residents. METHODS: We enrolled residents within 15 days of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test (diagnosis) at an Arkansas facility from July 7 to 15, 2020 and instead them for 42 days. Every 3 days for 21 days and then weekly, we assessed COVID-19 symptoms, collected specimens (oropharyngeal, anterior nares, and saliva), and reviewed medical charts. Blood for serology was collected on days 0, 6, 12, 21, and 42. Infectivity was defined by positive culture. Duration of culture positivity was compared with duration of COVID-19 symptoms and RT-PCR positivity. Data were summarized using measures of central tendency, frequencies, and proportions. RESULTS: We enrolled 17 of 39 (44%) eligible residents. Median participant age was 82 years (range, 58-97 years). All had ≥3 underlying conditions. Median duration of RT-PCR positivity was 22 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8-31 days) from diagnosis; median duration of symptoms was 42 days (IQR, 28-49 days). Of 9 (53%) participants with any culture-positive specimens, 1 (11%) severely immunocompromised participant remained culture-positive 19 days from diagnosis; 8 of 9 (89%) were culture-positive ≤8 days from diagnosis. Seroconversion occurred in 12 of 12 (100%) surviving participants with ≥1 blood specimen; all participants were culture-negative before seroconversion. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of infectivity was considerably shorter than duration of symptoms and RT-PCR positivity. Severe immunocompromise may prolong SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Seroconversion indicated noninfectivity in this cohort.

Implementation and Evolution of Mitigation Measures, Testing, and Contact Tracing in the National Football League, August 9-November 21, 2020.

The National Football League (NFL) and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) began the 2020 football season in July, implementing extensive mitigation and surveillance measures in facilities and during travel and gameplay. Mitigation protocols* were evaluated and modified based on data from routine reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); proximity tracking devices; and detailed interviews. Midseason, transmission was observed in persons who had cumulative interactions of <15 minutes' duration, leading to a revised definition of high-risk contacts that required consideration of mask use, setting and room ventilation in addition to proximity and duration of interaction. The NFL also developed an intensive protocol that imposed stricter infection prevention precautions when a case was identified at an NFL club. The intensive protocol effectively prevented the occurrence of high-risk interactions, with no high-risk contacts identified for 71% of traced cases at clubs under the intensive protocol. The incorporation of the nature and location of the interaction, including mask use, indoor versus outdoor setting, and ventilation, in addition to proximity and duration, likely improved identification of exposed persons at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Quarantine of these persons, along with testing and intensive protocols, can reduce spread of infection.

Diagnosed and Undiagnosed COVID-19 in US Emergency Department Health Care Personnel: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis. RESULTS: Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients.

SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assay Needs for the Next Phase of the US COVID-19 Pandemic Response.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for validated and standardized severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quantitative immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralization assays that can be used to understand the immunology and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and support the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted to identify English language publications from peer-reviewed journals and preprints from January 2020 through November 6, 2020. Relevant publications were reviewed for mention of IgG or neutralization assays for SARS-CoV-2, or both, and the methods of reporting assay results. RESULTS: Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG results have been reported from a limited number of studies; most studies used in-house laboratory-developed tests in limited settings, and only two semiquantitative tests have received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). As of November 6, 2020, there is only one SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay with FDA EUA. Relatively few studies have attempted correlation of quantitative IgG titers with neutralization results to estimate surrogates of protection. The number of individuals tested is small compared with the magnitude of the pandemic, and persons tested are not representative of disproportionately affected populations. Methods of reporting quantitative results are not standardized to enable comparisons and meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of standardized SARS-CoV-2 quantitative IgG and neutralization assays precludes comparison of results from published studies. Interassay and interlaboratory validation and standardization of assays will support efforts to better understand antibody kinetics and longevity of humoral immune responses postillness, surrogates of immune protection, and vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Public-private partnerships could facilitate realization of these advances in the United States and worldwide.