Public Health Implications of Adapting HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Programs for Virtual Service Delivery in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 threatens to disrupt global progress toward HIV epidemic control. Opportunities exist to leverage ongoing public health responses to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on HIV services, and novel approaches to care provision might help address both epidemics. OBJECTIVE: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, novel approaches to maintain comprehensive HIV prevention service delivery are needed. The aim of this study was to summarize the related literature to highlight adaptations that could address potential COVID-19-related service interruptions. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and searched six databases, OVID/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase, for studies published between January 1, 2010, and October 26, 2021, related to recent technology-based interventions for virtual service delivery. Search terms included "telemedicine," "telehealth," "mobile health," "eHealth," "mHealth," "telecommunication," "social media," "mobile device," and "internet," among others. Of the 6685 abstracts identified, 1259 focused on HIV virtual service delivery, 120 of which were relevant for HIV prevention efforts; 48 pertained to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 19 of these focused on evaluations of interventions for the virtual service delivery of PrEP. Of the 16 systematic reviews identified, three were specific to PrEP. All 35 papers were reviewed for outcomes of efficacy, feasibility, and/or acceptability. Limitations included heterogeneity of the studies' methodological approaches and outcomes; thus, a meta-analysis was not performed. We considered the evidence-based interventions found in our review and developed a virtual service delivery model for HIV prevention interventions. We also considered how this platform could be leveraged for COVID-19 prevention and care. RESULTS: We summarize 19 studies of virtual service delivery of PrEP and 16 relevant reviews. Examples of technology-based interventions that were effective, feasible, and/or acceptable for PrEP service delivery include: use of SMS, internet, and smartphone apps such as iText (50% [95% CI 16%-71%] reduction in discontinuation of PrEP) and PrEPmate (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.24-5.5.4); telehealth and eHealth platforms for virtual visits such as PrEPTECH and IowaTelePrEP; and platforms for training of health care workers such as Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO). We suggest a virtual service delivery model for PrEP that can be leveraged for COVID-19 using the internet and social media for demand creation, community-based self-testing, telehealth platforms for risk assessment and follow-up, applications for support groups and adherence/appointment reminders, and applications for monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Innovations in the virtual service provision of PrEP occurred before COVID-19 but have new relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The innovations we describe might strengthen HIV prevention service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the long run by engaging traditionally hard-to-reach populations, reducing stigma, and creating a more accessible health care platform. These virtual service delivery platforms can mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV services, which can be leveraged to facilitate COVID-19 pandemic control now and for future responses.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Cumulative Incidence, United States, August 2020-December 2020.

BACKGROUND: Reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases underestimate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. We conducted a national probability survey of US households to estimate cumulative incidence adjusted for antibody waning. METHODS: From August-December 2020 a random sample of US addresses were mailed a survey and self-collected nasal swabs and dried blood spot cards. One adult household member completed the survey and mail specimens for viral detection and total (immunoglobulin [Ig] A, IgM, IgG) nucleocapsid antibody by a commercial, emergency use authorization-approved antigen capture assay. We estimated cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 adjusted for waning antibodies and calculated reported fraction (RF) and infection fatality ratio (IFR). Differences in seropositivity among demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups were explored. RESULTS: Among 39 500 sampled households, 4654 respondents provided responses. Cumulative incidence adjusted for waning was 11.9% (95% credible interval [CrI], 10.5%-13.5%) as of 30 October 2020. We estimated 30 332 842 (CrI, 26 703 753-34 335 338) total infections in the US adult population by 30 October 2020. RF was 22.3% and IFR was 0.85% among adults. Black non-Hispanics (Prevalence ratio (PR) 2.2) and Hispanics (PR, 3.1) were more likely than White non-Hispanics to be seropositive. CONCLUSIONS: One in 8 US adults had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by October 2020; however, few had been accounted for in public health reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic is likely substantially underestimated by reported cases. Disparities in COVID-19 by race observed among reported cases cannot be attributed to differential diagnosis or reporting of infections in population subgroups.

Cumulative Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among Adults in Georgia, United States, August to December 2020.

BACKGROUND: Reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases underestimate true severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Data on all infections, including asymptomatic infections, are needed. To minimize biases in estimates from reported cases and seroprevalence surveys, we conducted a household-based probability survey and estimated cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections adjusted for antibody waning. METHODS: From August to December 2020, we mailed specimen collection kits (nasal swabs and blood spots) to a random sample of Georgia addresses. One household adult completed a survey and returned specimens for virus and antibody testing. We estimated cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections adjusted for waning antibodies, reported fraction, and infection fatality ratio (IFR). Differences in seropositivity among demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups were explored with weighted prevalence ratios (PR). RESULTS: Among 1370 participants, adjusted cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was 16.1% (95% credible interval [CrI], 13.5%-19.2%) as of 16 November 2020. The reported fraction was 26.6% and IFR was 0.78%. Non-Hispanic black (PR, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-4.1) and Hispanic adults (PR, 1.98; 95% CI, .74-5.31) were more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to be seropositive. CONCLUSIONS: As of mid-November 2020, 1 in 6 adults in Georgia had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The COVID-19 epidemic in Georgia is likely substantially underestimated by reported cases.

COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions, Intentions, and Uptake Among Young Adults in the United States: Prospective College-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among US young adults, particularly those that belong to racial and ethnic minorities, remains low compared to their older peers. Understanding vaccine perceptions and their influence on vaccination uptake among this population remains crucial to achieving population herd immunity. OBJECTIVE: We sought to study perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines as well as intended and actual vaccine uptake among one population of college students, faculty, and staff. METHODS: As part of a larger study aimed at investigating the dynamics of COVID-19 transmission, serology, and perception on a college campus, participants were asked about their views on the COVID-19 vaccine in February 2021. Vaccination status was assessed by self-report in April 2021. Logistic regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios with marginal standardization. RESULTS: We found that non-White participants were 25% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccination compared to White participants. Among those who were unvaccinated, Black and other non-White participants were significantly more likely to indicate they were unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine compared to White participants. The most common reason for unwillingness to receive the vaccine was belief that the vaccine approval process was rushed. CONCLUSIONS: There are racial differences in perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine among young adults, and these differences might differentially impact vaccine uptake among young racial and ethnic minorities. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake among college populations might require campaigns specifically tailored to these minority groups.

At-home self-collection of saliva, oropharyngeal swabs and dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and serology: Post-collection acceptability of specimen collection process and patient confidence in specimens.

BACKGROUND: Options to increase the ease of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed. Self-collection of diagnostic specimens at home offers an avenue to allow people to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection or immune response without traveling to a clinic or laboratory. Before this study, survey respondents indicated willingness to self-collect specimens for COVID-related tests, but hypothetical willingness can differ from post-collection acceptability after participants collect specimens. METHODS: 153 US adults were enrolled in a study of the willingness and feasibility of patients to self-collect three diagnostic specimens (saliva, oropharyngeal swab (OPS) and dried blood spot (DBS) card) while observed by a clinician through a telehealth session. After the specimens were collected, 148 participants participated in a survey about the acceptability of the collection, packing and shipping process, and their confidence in the samples collected for COVID-related laboratory testing. RESULTS: A large majority of participants (>84%) reported that collecting, packing and shipping of saliva, OPS, and DBS specimens were acceptable. Nearly nine in 10 (87%) reported being confident or very confident that the specimens they collected were sufficient for laboratory analysis.There were no differences in acceptability for any specimen type, packing and shipping, or confidence in samples, by gender, age, race/ethnicity, or educational level. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection of specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preparing and shipping specimens for analysis, were acceptable in a diverse group of US adults. Further refinement of materials and instructions to support self-collection of saliva, OPS and DBS specimens for COVID-related testing is needed.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Antibodies in Diverse Samples: Protocol to Validate the Sufficiency of Provider-Observed, Home-Collected Blood, Saliva, and Oropharyngeal Samples.

BACKGROUND: The response in the United States to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by a lack of aggressive testing for the infection. Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cornerstone of an effective public health response. However, efforts to test have been hampered by limited reagents, limitations in the availability of swabs used for the collection of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, limitations in personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care providers collecting the NPS specimens, and limitations in viral transport media for transporting the specimens. Therefore, more flexible options for screening for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serologic responses are critical to inform clinical and public health responses. OBJECTIVE: We aim to document the ability of patients to self-collect sufficient specimens for SARS-CoV-2 viral detection and serology. METHODS: Patient self-collection of samples will be done with observation by a health care provider during a telemedicine session. Participants will be mailed a specimen collection kit, engage in a telehealth session with a provider through a HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)-compliant video meeting, and collect specimens while being observed by the provider. Providers will record whether they are confident in the suitability of the specimen for laboratory testing that would inform clinical decision making. We will objectively assess the sufficiency of biological material in the mailed-in specimens. RESULTS: The protocol was approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board (IRB) on March 30, 2020 (Protocol number 371). To date, we have enrolled 159 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a conceptual framework for assessing the sufficiency of patient-collected samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serologic responses to infection is critical for facilitating public health responses and providing PPE-sparing options to increase testing. Validation of alternative methods of specimen collection should include objective measures of the sufficiency of specimens for testing. A strong evidence base for diversifying testing modalities will improve tools to guide public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.