SARS-CoV-2 control on a large urban college campus without mass testing.

OBJECTIVE: A small percentage of universities and colleges conducted mass SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, universal testing is resource-intensive, strains national testing capacity, and false negative tests can encourage unsafe behaviors. PARTICIPANTS: A large urban university campus. METHODS: Virus control centered on three pillars: mitigation, containment, and communication, with testing of symptomatic and a random subset of asymptomatic students. RESULTS: Random surveillance testing demonstrated a prevalence among asymptomatic students of 0.4% throughout the term. There were two surges in cases that were contained by enhanced mitigation and communication combined with targeted testing. Cumulative cases totaled 445 for the term, most resulting from unsafe undergraduate student behavior and among students living off-campus. A case rate of 232/10,000 undergraduates equaled or surpassed several peer institutions that conducted mass testing. CONCLUSIONS: An emphasis on behavioral mitigation and communication can control virus transmission on a large urban campus combined with a limited and targeted testing strategy.

Population-based hospitalization burden estimates for respiratory viruses, 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) result in millions of illnesses and hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations annually in the United States. The responsible viruses include influenza, parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human rhinoviruses. This study estimated the population-based hospitalization burden of those respiratory viruses (RVs) over 4 years, from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019, among adults ≥18 years of age for Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania. METHODS: We used population-based statewide hospital discharge data, health system electronic medical record (EMR) data for RV tests, census data, and a published method to calculate burden. RESULTS: Among 26,211 eligible RV tests, 67.6% were negative for any virus. The viruses detected were rhinovirus/enterovirus (2552; 30.1%), influenza A (2,299; 27.1%), RSV (1082; 12.7%), human metapneumovirus (832; 9.8%), parainfluenza (601; 7.1%), influenza B (565; 6.7%), non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (420; 4.9% 1.5 years of data available), and adenovirus (136; 1.6%). Most tests were among female (58%) and White (71%) patients with 60% of patients ≥65 years, 24% 50-64 years, and 16% 18-49 years. The annual burden ranged from 137-174/100,000 population for rhinovirus/enterovirus; 99-182/100,000 for influenza A; and 56-81/100,000 for RSV. Among adults <65 years, rhinovirus/enterovirus hospitalization burden was higher than influenza A; whereas the reverse was true for adults ≥65 years. RV hospitalization burden increased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: These virus-specific ARI population-based hospital burden estimates showed significant non-influenza burden. These estimates can serve as the basis for several areas of research that are essential for setting funding priorities and guiding public health policy.

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear. METHODS: 148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid). RESULTS: Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.