ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Uncovering and addressing disparities in infectious disease outbreaks require a rapid, methodical understanding of local epidemiology. We conducted a seroprevalence study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Holyoke, Massachusetts, a majority Hispanic city with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage to estimate seroprevalence and identify disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We invited 2000 randomly sampled households between 11/5/2020 and 12/31/2020 to complete questionnaires and provide dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. We calculated seroprevalence based on the presence of IgG antibodies using a weighted Bayesian procedure that incorporated uncertainty in antibody test sensitivity and specificity and accounted for household clustering. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty households including 472 individuals were enrolled. Three hundred twenty-eight individuals underwent antibody testing. Citywide seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 13.1% (95% CI 6.9-22.3) compared to 9.8% of the population infected based on publicly reported cases. Seroprevalence was 16.1% (95% CI 6.2-31.8) among Hispanic individuals compared to 9.4% (95% CI 4.6-16.4) among non-Hispanic white individuals. Seroprevalence was higher among Spanish-speaking households (21.9%; 95% CI 8.3-43.9) compared to English-speaking households (10.2%; 95% CI 5.2-18.0) and among individuals in high social vulnerability index (SVI) areas based on the CDC SVI (14.4%; 95% CI 7.1-25.5) compared to low SVI areas (8.2%; 95% CI 3.1-16.9). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in a city with high levels of social vulnerability was 13.1% during the pre-vaccination period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hispanic individuals and individuals in communities characterized by high SVI were at the highest risk of infection. Public health interventions should be designed to ensure that individuals in high social vulnerability communities have access to the tools to combat COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Point-of-care antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to detect Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represent a scalable tool for surveillance of active SARS-CoV-2 infections in the population. Data on the performance of these tests in real-world community settings are paramount to guide their implementation to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the performance characteristics of the CareStart COVID-19 Antigen test (CareStart) in a community testing site in Holyoke, Massachusetts. We compared CareStart to a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) reference, both using anterior nasal swab samples. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and the expected positive and negative predictive values at different SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. We performed 666 total tests on 591 unique individuals. 573 (86%) were asymptomatic. There were 52 positive tests by RT-qPCR. The sensitivity of CareStart was 49.0% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 34.8-63.4) and specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.5-99.9). Among positive RT-qPCR tests, the median cycle threshold (Ct) was significantly lower in samples that tested positive on CareStart. Using a Ct ≤ 30 as a benchmark for positivity increased the sensitivity of the test to 64.9% (95% CI 47.5-79.8). Our study shows that CareStart has a high specificity and moderate sensitivity. The utility of RDTs, such as CareStart, in mass implementation should prioritize use cases in which a higher specificity is more important, such as triage tests to rule-in active infections in community surveillance programs.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Pandemics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. RESULTS: Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. RESULTS: Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P<.001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P <.001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P=.017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.