Utility of COVID-19 antigen testing in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The BinaxNOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag Card test (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc.) is a lateral flow immunochromatographic point-of-care test for the qualitative detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein antigen. It provides results from nasal swabs in 15 minutes. Our purpose was to determine its sensitivity and specificity for a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Eligible patients had symptoms of COVID-19 or suspected exposure. After consent, 2 nasal swabs were collected; 1 was tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ie, the gold standard polymerase chain reaction test) and the second run on the BinaxNOW point of care platform by emergency department staff. RESULTS: From July 20 to October 28, 2020, 767 patients were enrolled, of which 735 had evaluable samples. Their mean (SD) age was 46.8 (16.6) years, and 422 (57.4%) were women. A total of 623 (84.8%) patients had COVID-19 symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath (n = 404; 55.0%), cough (n = 314; 42.7%), and fever (n = 253; 34.4%). Although 460 (62.6%) had symptoms ≤7 days, the mean (SD) time since symptom onset was 8.1 (14.0) days. Positive tests occurred in 173 (23.5%) and 141 (19.2%) with the gold standard versus BinaxNOW test, respectively. Those with symptoms >2 weeks had a positive test rate roughly half of those with earlier presentations. In patients with symptoms ≤7 days, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for the BinaxNOW test were 84.6%, 98.5%, 94.9%, and 95.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BinaxNOW point-of-care test has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for the detection of COVID-19. We recommend using the BinasNOW for patients with symptoms up to 2 weeks.

Multisite Evaluation of Prediction Models for Emergency Department Crowding Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a machine learning framework to forecast emergency department (ED) crowding and to evaluate model performance under spatial and temporal data drift. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained four datasets, identified by the location: 1-large academic hospital and 2-rural hospital, and time period: pre-COVID (Jan 1, 2019-Feb 1, 2020) and COVID-era (May 15, 2020-Feb 1, 2021). Our primary target was a binary outcome that is equal to 1 if the number of patients with acute respiratory illness that were ED boarding for more than four hours was above a prescribed historical percentile. We trained a random forest and used the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate out-of-sample performance for two experiments: 1) we evaluated the impact of sudden temporal drift by training models using pre-COVID data and testing them during the COVID-era, 2) we evaluated the impact of spatial drift by testing models trained at Location 1 on data from Location 2, and vice versa. RESULTS: The baseline AUC values for ED boarding ranged from 0.54 (pre-COVID at Location 2) to 0.81 (COVID-era at Location 1). Models trained with pre-COVID data performed similarly to COVID-era models (0.82 vs. 0.78 at Location 1). Models that were transferred from Location 2 to Location 1 performed worse than models trained at Location 1 (0.51 vs. 0.78). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that ED boarding is a predictable metric for ED crowding, models were not significantly impacted by temporal data drift, and any attempts at implementation must consider spatial data drift.

The impact of vaccination to control COVID-19 burden in the United States: A simulation modeling approach.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination programs aim to control the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the relative impacts of vaccine coverage, effectiveness, and capacity in the context of nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask use and physical distancing on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are unclear. Our objective was to examine the impact of vaccination on the control of SARS-CoV-2 using our previously developed agent-based simulation model. METHODS: We applied our agent-based model to replicate COVID-19-related events in 1) Dane County, Wisconsin; 2) Milwaukee metropolitan area, Wisconsin; 3) New York City (NYC). We evaluated the impact of vaccination considering the proportion of the population vaccinated, probability that a vaccinated individual gains immunity, vaccination capacity, and adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions. We estimated the timing of pandemic control, defined as the date after which only a small number of new cases occur. RESULTS: The timing of pandemic control depends highly on vaccination coverage, effectiveness, and adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions. In Dane County and Milwaukee, if 50% of the population is vaccinated with a daily vaccination capacity of 0.25% of the population, vaccine effectiveness of 90%, and the adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions is 60%, controlled spread could be achieved by June 2021 versus October 2021 in Dane County and November 2021 in Milwaukee without vaccine. DISCUSSION: In controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the impact of vaccination varies widely depending not only on effectiveness and coverage, but also concurrent adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions.

Effect of Timing of and Adherence to Social Distancing Measures on COVID-19 Burden in the United States : A Simulation Modeling Approach.

BACKGROUND: Across the United States, various social distancing measures were implemented to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the effectiveness of such measures for specific regions with varying population demographic characteristics and different levels of adherence to social distancing is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of social distancing measures in unique regions. DESIGN: An agent-based simulation model. SETTING: Agent-based model applied to Dane County, Wisconsin; the Milwaukee metropolitan (metro) area; and New York City (NYC). PATIENTS: Synthetic population at different ages. INTERVENTION: Different times for implementing and easing social distancing measures at different levels of adherence. MEASUREMENTS: The model represented the social network and interactions among persons in a region, considering population demographic characteristics, limited testing availability, "imported" infections, asymptomatic disease transmission, and age-specific adherence to social distancing measures. The primary outcome was the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: The timing of and adherence to social distancing had a major effect on COVID-19 occurrence. In NYC, implementing social distancing measures 1 week earlier would have reduced the total number of confirmed cases from 203 261 to 41 366 as of 31 May 2020, whereas a 1-week delay could have increased the number of confirmed cases to 1 407 600. A delay in implementation had a differential effect on the number of cases in the Milwaukee metro area versus Dane County, indicating that the effect of social distancing measures varies even within the same state. LIMITATION: The effect of weather conditions on transmission dynamics was not considered. CONCLUSION: The timing of implementing and easing social distancing measures has major effects on the number of COVID-19 cases. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Impact of Timing of and Adherence to Social Distancing Measures on COVID-19 Burden in the US: A Simulation Modeling Approach.

BACKGROUND: Across the U.S., various social distancing measures were implemented to control COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is uncertainty in the effectiveness of such measures for specific regions with varying population demographics and different levels of adherence to social distancing. The objective of this paper is to determine the impact of social distancing measures in unique regions. METHODS: We developed COVid-19 Agent-based simulation Model (COVAM), an agent-based simulation model (ABM) that represents the social network and interactions among the people in a region considering population demographics, limited testing availability, imported infections from outside of the region, asymptomatic disease transmission, and adherence to social distancing measures. We adopted COVAM to represent COVID-19-associated events in Dane County, Wisconsin, Milwaukee metropolitan area, and New York City (NYC). We used COVAM to evaluate the impact of three different aspects of social distancing: 1) Adherence to social distancing measures; 2) timing of implementing social distancing; and 3) timing of easing social distancing. RESULTS: We found that the timing of social distancing and adherence level had a major effect on COVID-19 occurrence. For example, in NYC, implementing social distancing measures on March 5, 2020 instead of March 12, 2020 would have reduced the total number of confirmed cases from 191,984 to 43,968 as of May 30, whereas a 1-week delay in implementing such measures could have increased the number of confirmed cases to 1,299,420. Easing social distancing measures on June 1, 2020 instead of June 15, 2020 in NYC would increase the total number of confirmed cases from 275,587 to 379,858 as of July 31. CONCLUSION: The timing of implementing social distancing measures, adherence to the measures, and timing of their easing have major effects on the number of COVID-19 cases.

Electronic Health Record-Based Surveillance for Community Transmitted COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus, manifests as a respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) and is the cause of an ongoing pandemic. The response to COVID-19 in the United States has been hampered by an overall lack of diagnostic testing capacity. To address uncertainty about ongoing levels of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission early in the pandemic, we aimed to develop a surveillance tool using readily available emergency department (ED) operations data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). This involved optimizing the identification of acute respiratory infection (ARI)-related encounters and then comparing metrics for these encounters before and after the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. METHODS: We performed an observational study using operational EHR data from two Midwest EDs with a combined annual census of over 80,000. Data were collected three weeks before and after the first confirmed case of local SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. To optimize capture of ARI cases, we compared various metrics including chief complaint, discharge diagnoses, and ARI-related orders. Operational metrics for ARI cases, including volume, pathogen identification, and illness severity, were compared between the preand post-community transmission timeframes using chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS: Compared to our combined definition of ARI, chief complaint, discharge diagnoses, and isolation orders individually identified less than half of the cases. Respiratory pathogen testing was the top performing individual ARI definition but still only identified 72.2% of cases. From the pre to post periods, we observed significant increases in ED volumes due to ARI and ARI cases without identified pathogen. CONCLUSION: Certain methods for identifying ARI cases in the ED may be inadequate and multiple criteria should be used to optimize capture. In the absence of widely available SARS-CoV-2 testing, operational metrics for ARI-related encounters, especially the proportion of cases involving negative pathogen testing, are useful indicators for active surveillance of potential COVID-19 related ED visits.