Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(12): 2217-2225, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1595231

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We investigated patients with potential severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection in the United States during May-July 2020. METHODS: We conducted case finding for patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 reinfection through the Emerging Infections Network. Cases reported were screened for laboratory and clinical findings of potential reinfection followed by requests for medical records and laboratory specimens. Available medical records were abstracted to characterize patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical course, and laboratory test results. Submitted specimens underwent further testing, including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), viral culture, whole genome sequencing, subgenomic RNA PCR, and testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody. RESULTS: Among 73 potential reinfection patients with available records, 30 patients had recurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms explained by alternative diagnoses with concurrent SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR, 24 patients remained asymptomatic after recovery but had recurrent or persistent RT-PCR, and 19 patients had recurrent COVID-19 symptoms with concurrent SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR but no alternative diagnoses. These 19 patients had symptom recurrence a median of 57 days after initial symptom onset (interquartile range: 47-76). Six of these patients had paired specimens available for further testing, but none had laboratory findings confirming reinfections. Testing of an additional 3 patients with recurrent symptoms and alternative diagnoses also did not confirm reinfection. CONCLUSIONS: We did not confirm SARS-CoV-2 reinfection within 90 days of the initial infection based on the clinical and laboratory characteristics of cases in this investigation. Our findings support current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance around quarantine and testing for patients who have recovered from COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Laboratories , Reinfection
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(9): e2978-e2984, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500992

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In response to reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in other US cities, we conducted multiple, proactive, facility-wide testing events for PEH living sheltered and unsheltered and homelessness service staff in Atlanta, Georgia. We describe the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence and associated symptoms, and review shelter infection prevention and control (IPC) policies. METHODS: PEH and staff were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during 7 April-6 May 2020. A subset of PEH and staff was screened for symptoms. Shelter assessments were conducted concurrently at a convenience sample of shelters using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 2875 individuals at 24 shelters and 9 unsheltered outreach events underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 2860 (99.5%) had conclusive test results. The SARS-CoV-2 prevalences were 2.1% (36/1684) among PEH living sheltered, 0.5% (3/628) among PEH living unsheltered, and 1.3% (7/548) among staff. Reporting fever, cough, or shortness of breath in the last week during symptom screening was 14% sensitive and 89% specific for identifying COVID-19 cases, compared with RT-PCR. Prevalences by shelter ranged 0-27.6%. Repeat testing 3-4 weeks later at 4 shelters documented decreased SARS-CoV-2 prevalences (0-3.9%). Of 24 shelters, 9 completed shelter assessments and implemented IPC measures as part of the COVID-19 response. CONCLUSIONS: PEH living in shelters experienced a higher SARS-CoV-2 prevalence compared with PEH living unsheltered. Facility-wide testing in congregate settings allowed for the identification and isolation of COVID-19 cases, and is an important strategy to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ill-Housed Persons , COVID-19 Testing , Georgia/epidemiology , Humans , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 27(3): 285-294, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1150043

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Local agencies across the United States have identified public health isolation sites for individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are not able to isolate in residence. PROGRAM: We describe logistics of establishing and operating isolation and noncongregate hotels for COVID-19 mitigation and use the isolation hotel as an opportunity to understand COVID-19 symptom evolution among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). IMPLEMENTATION: Multiple agencies in Atlanta, Georgia, established an isolation hotel for PEH with COVID-19 and noncongregate hotel for PEH without COVID-19 but at risk of severe illness. PEH were referred to the isolation hotel through proactive, community-based testing and hospital-based testing. Daily symptoms were recorded prospectively. Disposition location was recorded for all clients. EVALUATION: During April 10 to September 1, 2020, 181 isolation hotel clients (77 community referrals; 104 hospital referrals) were admitted a median 3 days after testing. Overall, 32% of community referrals and 7% of hospital referrals became symptomatic after testing positive; 83% of isolation hotel clients reported symptoms at some point; 93% completed isolation. Among 302 noncongregate hotel clients, median stay was 18 weeks; 61% were discharged to permanent housing or had a permanent housing discharge plan. DISCUSSION: Overall, a high proportion of PEH completed isolation at the hotel, suggesting a high level of acceptability. Many PEH with COVID-19 diagnosed in the community developed symptoms after testing, indicating that proactive, community-based testing can facilitate early isolation. Noncongregate hotels can be a useful COVID-19 community mitigation strategy by bridging PEH at risk of severe illness to permanent housing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Guidelines as Topic , Housing/standards , Ill-Housed Persons/statistics & numerical data , Public Health/standards , Quarantine/standards , Social Isolation , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Disease Management , Female , Georgia/epidemiology , Housing/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL