ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Viral infections are suspected triggers in Kawasaki disease (KD); however, a specific viral trigger has not been identified. OBJECTIVES: In children with KD, to identify (1) overall prevalence of viral infections; (2) prevalence of specific viruses; and (3) whether viral positivity was associated with coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) or refractoriness to intravenous immunoglobin (IVIG). DATA SOURCES: We searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and included children diagnosed with KD who underwent viral testing. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently reviewed full-text articles to confirm eligibility, extract data, appraise for bias, and assess evidence quality for outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria. We defined viral positivity as number of children with a positive viral test divided by total tested. Secondary outcomes were CAA (z score ≥2.5) and IVIG refractoriness (fever ≥36 hours after IVIG). RESULTS: Of 3189 unique articles identified, 54 full-text articles were reviewed, and 18 observational studies were included. Viral positivity weighted mean prevalence was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14-51) and varied from 5% to 66%, with significant between-study heterogeneity. Individual virus positivity was highest for rhinovirus (19%), adenovirus (10%), and coronavirus (7%). Odds of CAA (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.75-1.56) or IVIG refractoriness (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35) did not differ on the basis of viral status. LIMITATIONS: Low or very low evidence quality. CONCLUSIONS: Viral infection was common with KD but without a predominant virus. Viral positivity was not associated with CAAs or IVIG refractoriness.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility, acceptability and results of Strong Families Start at Home, a 6-month pilot trial of a home-based food parenting/nutrition intervention. DESIGN: Pilot randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants received six visits with a community health worker trained in motivational interviewing (three home visits, three phone calls); an in-home cooking or reading activity; personalised feedback on a recorded family meal or reading activity; text messages and tailored printed materials. PARTICIPANTS: Parents and their 2-5-year-old child were randomised into intervention (responsive food parenting practices/nutrition) or control (reading readiness) groups. RESULTS: Parents (n 63) were mostly mothers (90 %), Hispanic/Latinx (87 %), born outside the USA (62 %), with household incomes <$25 k (54 %). Despite delivery during COVID-19, 63 % of dyads were retained at 6 months. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. All parents in the intervention group (n 24) expressed high levels of satisfaction with the intervention, which produced positive treatment effects for whole and total fruit component Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores (point estimate (PE) = 2·14, 95 % CI (0·17, 1·48); PE = 1·71, 95 % CI (0·16, 1·47), respectively) and negative treatment effects for sodium (PE = -2·09, 95 % CI (-1·35, -0·04)). Positive treatment effects also resulted for the following food parenting practices: regular timing of meals and snacks (PE = 1·08, 95 % CI (0·61, 2·00)), reducing distractions during mealtimes (PE = -0·79, 95 % CI (-1·52, -0·19)), using food as a reward (PE = -0·54, 95 % CI (-1·35, -0·04)) and providing a supportive meal environment (PE = 0·73, 95 % CI (0·18, 1·51)). CONCLUSION: Given the continued disparities in diet quality among low-income and diverse families, continued efforts to improve child diet quality in fully powered intervention trials are needed.
ABSTRACT
Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prevalence , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Antibodies, Viral , Immunoglobulin GABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine current and previous SARS-COV-2 infection, and describe risk factors associated with seropositivity, among HCWs and hospital staff between June and October of 2020. Methodology: Data from the day of enrollment for a prospective cohort study were analyzed to determine point prevalence and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs and hospital staff of a university hospital in Colombia. Respiratory samples were collected to perform RT-PCR tests, along with blood samples to measure SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies. Data on nosocomial and community risk factors for infection were also collected and analyzed. Findings: 420 HCWs and hospital staff members were included. The seroprevalence at baseline was 23.2%, of which 10.7% had only IgM antibodies, 0.7% had IgG, and 11.7% had IgM and IgG. The prevalence of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.9%. Being a nurse assistant was significantly associated with seropositivity when compared with all other job duties (PR 2.39, 95% CI 1.27-3.65, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Overall SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 1.9% and seroprevalence was 23.15%. Nurse assistants, medical doctors or students, and laboratory workers had a higher possibility of being SARS-CoV-2 seropositive.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.