Acceptability of Telehealth for Multidiagnostic Suicidal Patients in a Real-World Dialectical Behavior Therapy Clinic During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) delivered through telehealth to complex, suicidal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We surveyed 163 adult participants enrolled in outpatient services at a private, free-standing DBT clinic certified by the DBT-Linehan Board of Certification for its fidelity to the treatment. Treatment satisfaction was assessed, as well as ease of telehealth over time, differences in satisfaction between patients who had previously experienced face-to-face treatment and those who had only experienced telehealth, patients' beliefs regarding the impact of telehealth on their progress, and preference for face-to-face versus telehealth services. Additionally, participants' reasons for liking and disliking telehealth were reported. Results: The average overall satisfaction rating was 82.26 (±18.71) on a 100-point scale. Factors identified as being relevant to satisfaction included increased access to care, saving time and money, and increased comfort participating in therapy from home. Factors identified as relevant to dissatisfaction included feeling less connected to therapists and other patients. The majority of participants reported that telehealth positively impacted or did not impact treatment progress. Satisfaction was significantly related to participants' perception of telehealth's impact on progress in treatment. Demographic variables were also included in the analyses, but were unrelated to satisfaction. Conclusions: Findings indicate that, from the point of view of consumer satisfaction, telehealth appears satisfactory for delivery of DBT and may play an increased role in behavioral health care postpandemic.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Status, Tenofovir Exposure, and the Risk of Poor Coronavirus Disease 19 Outcomes: Real-World Analysis From 6 United States Cohorts Before Vaccine Rollout.

BACKGROUND: People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH) may be at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We examined HIV status and COVID-19 severity, and whether tenofovir, used by PWH for HIV treatment and people without HIV (PWoH) for HIV prevention, was associated with protection. METHODS: Within 6 cohorts of PWH and PWoH in the United States, we compared the 90-day risk of any hospitalization, COVID-19 hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation or death by HIV status and by prior exposure to tenofovir, among those with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between 1 March and 30 November 2020. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated by targeted maximum likelihood estimation, with adjustment for demographics, cohort, smoking, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, calendar period of first infection, and CD4 cell counts and HIV RNA levels (in PWH only). RESULTS: Among PWH (n = 1785), 15% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 5% received mechanical ventilation or died, compared with 6% and 2%, respectively, for PWoH (n = 189 351). Outcome prevalence was lower for PWH and PWoH with prior tenofovir use. In adjusted analyses, PWH were at increased risk compared with PWoH for any hospitalization (aRR, 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.44]), COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.29 [1.15-1.45]), and mechanical ventilation or death (1.51 [1.19-1.92]). Prior tenofovir use was associated with reduced hospitalizations among PWH (aRR, 0.85 [95% confidence interval, .73-.99]) and PWoH (0.71 [.62-.81]). CONCLUSIONS: Before COVID-19 vaccine availability, PWH were at greater risk for severe outcomes than PWoH. Tenofovir was associated with a significant reduction in clinical events for both PWH and PWoH.

Differences in COVID-19 testing and adverse outcomes by race, ethnicity, sex, and health system setting in a large diverse US cohort.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to differences in COVID-19 testing and adverse outcomes. We examine differences in testing and adverse outcomes by race/ethnicity and sex across a geographically diverse and system-based COVID-19 cohort collaboration. METHODS: Observational study among adults (≥18 years) within six US cohorts from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 using data from electronic health record and patient reporting. Race/ethnicity and sex as risk factors were primary exposures, with health system type (integrated health system, academic health system, or interval cohort) as secondary. Proportions measured SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity; attributed hospitalization and death related to COVID-19. Relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals quantified associations between exposures and main outcomes. RESULTS: 5,958,908 patients were included. Hispanic patients had the highest proportions of SARS-CoV-2 testing (16%) and positivity (18%), while Asian/Pacific Islander patients had the lowest portions tested (11%) and White patients had the lowest positivity rates (5%). Men had a lower likelihood of testing (RR = 0.90 [0.89-0.90]) and a higher positivity risk (RR = 1.16 [1.14-1.18]) compared to women. Black patients were more likely to have COVID-19-related hospitalizations (RR = 1.36 [1.28-1.44]) and death (RR = 1.17 [1.03-1.32]) compared with White patients. Men were more likely to be hospitalized (RR = 1.30 [1.16-1.22]) or die (RR = 1.70 [1.53-1.89]) compared to women. These racial/ethnic and sex differences were reflected in both health system types. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports evidence of disparities by race/ethnicity and sex during the COVID-19 pandemic that persisted even in healthcare settings with reduced barriers to accessing care. Further research is needed to understand and prevent the drivers that resulted in higher burdens of morbidity among certain Black patients and men.

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 with clinical condition definitions and comparison in a matched cohort.

Disease characterization of Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) does not account for pre-existing conditions and time course of incidence. We utilized longitudinal data and matching to a COVID PCR-negative population to discriminate PASC conditions over time within our patient population during 2020. Clinical Classification Software was used to identify PASC condition groupings. Conditions were specified acute and persistent (occurring 0-30 days post COVID PCR and persisted 30-120 days post-test) or late (occurring initially 30-120 days post-test). We matched 3:1 COVID PCR-negative COVIDPCR-positive by age, sex, testing month and service area, controlling for pre-existing conditions up to four years prior; 28,118 PCR-positive to 70,293 PCR-negative patients resulted. We estimated PASC risk from the matched cohort. Risk of any PASC condition was 12% greater for PCR-positive patients in the late period with a significantly higher risk of anosmia, cardiac dysrhythmia, diabetes, genitourinary disorders, malaise, and nonspecific chest pain. Our findings contribute to a more refined PASC definition which can enhance clinical care.

Analysis of Severe Illness After Postvaccination COVID-19 Breakthrough Among Adults With and Without HIV in the US.

Importance: Understanding the severity of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) breakthrough illness among people with HIV (PWH) can inform vaccine guidelines and risk-reduction recommendations. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of severe breakthrough illness among vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) who experience a breakthrough infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET-II) collaboration included adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV who were receiving care and were fully vaccinated by June 30, 2021, along with PWoH matched according to date fully vaccinated, age group, race, ethnicity, and sex from 4 US integrated health systems and academic centers. Those with postvaccination COVID-19 breakthrough before December 31, 2021, were eligible. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness, defined as hospitalization within 28 days after a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis. Discrete time proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs of severe breakthrough illness within 28 days of breakthrough COVID-19 by HIV status adjusting for demographic variables, COVID-19 vaccine type, and clinical factors. The proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation or died was compared by HIV status. Results: Among 3649 patients with breakthrough COVID-19 (1241 PWH and 2408 PWoH), most were aged 55 years or older (2182 patients [59.8%]) and male (3244 patients [88.9%]). The cumulative incidence of severe illness in the first 28 days was low and comparable between PWoH and PWH (7.3% vs 6.7%; risk difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -2.58% to 1.23%). The risk of severe breakthrough illness was 59% higher in PWH with CD4 cell counts less than 350 cells/µL compared with PWoH (aHR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.46; P = .049). In multivariable analyses among PWH, being female, older, having a cancer diagnosis, and lower CD4 cell count were associated with increased risk of severe breakthrough illness, whereas previous COVID-19 was associated with reduced risk. Among 249 hospitalized patients, 24 (9.6%) were mechanically ventilated and 20 (8.0%) died, with no difference by HIV status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness within 28 days of a breakthrough infection was low among vaccinated PWH and PWoH. PWH with moderate or severe immune suppression had a higher risk of severe breakthrough infection and should be included in groups prioritized for additional vaccine doses and risk-reduction strategies.

Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing and Positivity Among Persons With and Without HIV in 6 US Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: It is not definitively known if persons with HIV (PWH) are more likely to be SARS-CoV-2 tested or test positive than persons without HIV (PWoH). We describe SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity in 6 large geographically and demographically diverse cohorts of PWH and PWoH in the United States. SETTING: The Corona Infectious Virus Epidemiology Team comprises 5 clinical cohorts within a health system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA; Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States, Rockville, MD; University of North Carolina Health, Chapel Hill, NC; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; and Veterans Aging Cohort Study) and 1 interval cohort (Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study/Women's Interagency HIV Study Combined Cohort Study). METHODS: We calculated the proportion of patients SARS-CoV-2 tested and the test positivity proportion by HIV status from March 1 to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: The cohorts ranged in size from 1675 to 31,304 PWH and 1430 to 3,742,604 PWoH. The proportion of PWH who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (19.6%-40.5% across sites) was significantly higher than PWoH (14.8%-29.4%) in the clinical cohorts. However, among those tested, the proportion of patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests was comparable by HIV status; the difference in proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positivity ranged from 4.7% lower to 1.4% higher. CONCLUSIONS: Although PWH had higher testing proportions compared with PWoH, we did not find evidence of increased positivity in 6 large, diverse populations across the United States. Ongoing monitoring of testing, positivity, and COVID-19-related outcomes in PWH are needed, given availability, response, and durability of COVID-19 vaccines; emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants; and latest therapeutic options.

Analysis of Postvaccination Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections Among Adults With HIV in the United States.

Importance: Recommendations for additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines for people with HIV (PWH) are restricted to those with advanced disease or unsuppressed HIV viral load. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection risk after vaccination among PWH is essential for informing vaccination guidelines. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET)-II (of the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design [NA-ACCORD], which is part of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS [IeDEA]), collaboration of 4 prospective, electronic health record-based cohorts from integrated health systems and academic health centers. Adult PWH who were fully vaccinated prior to June 30, 2021, were matched with PWoH on date of full vaccination, age, race and ethnicity, and sex and followed up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 breakthrough infections, defined as laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 diagnosis after a patient was fully vaccinated. Results: Among 113 994 patients (33 029 PWH and 80 965 PWoH), most were 55 years or older (80 017 [70%]) and male (104 967 [92%]); 47 098 (41%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 43 218 (38%) were non-Hispanic White. The rate of breakthrough infections was higher in PWH vs PWoH (55 [95% CI, 52-58] cases per 1000 person-years vs 43 [95% CI, 42-45] cases per 1000 person-years). Cumulative incidence of breakthroughs 9 months after full vaccination was low (3.8% [95% CI, 3.7%-3.9%]), albeit higher in PWH vs PWoH (4.4% vs 3.5%; log-rank P < .001; risk difference, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.2%]) and within each vaccine type. Breakthrough infection risk was 28% higher in PWH vs PWoH (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.19-1.37]). Among PWH, younger age (<45 y vs 45-54 y), history of COVID-19, and not receiving an additional dose (aHR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58-0.88]) were associated with increased risk of breakthrough infections. There was no association of breakthrough with HIV viral load suppression, but high CD4 count (ie, ≥500 cells/mm3) was associated with fewer breakthroughs among PWH. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, COVID-19 vaccination, especially with an additional dose, was effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating through December 31, 2021. PWH had an increased risk of breakthrough infections compared with PWoH. Expansion of recommendations for additional vaccine doses to all PWH should be considered.

Antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in All of Us Research Program Participants, 2 January to 18 March 2020.

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.

Toward Understanding COVID-19 Recovery: National Institutes of Health Workshop on Postacute COVID-19.

Over the past year, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has swept the globe, resulting in an enormous worldwide burden of infection and mortality. However, the additional toll resulting from long-term consequences of the pandemic has yet to be tallied. Heterogeneous disease manifestations and syndromes are now recognized among some persons after their initial recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, representing in the broadest sense a failure to return to a baseline state of health after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. On 3 to 4 December 2020, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in collaboration with other Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health, convened a virtual workshop to summarize existing knowledge on postacute COVID-19 and to identify key knowledge gaps regarding this condition.