Scaling Up CareKit: Lessons Learned from Expansion of a Centralized Home HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Program.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in implementing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted infection (STI) services for men who have sex with men (MSM), many remain underserved because of barriers like stigma, low facility coverage, and provider competency. This article describes the implementation of centralized nationwide mailed HIV/STI home testing (CareKit). METHODS: The Emory Center for AIDS Research developed CareKit for research study participants to request HIV self-test kits, STI specimen collection kits, and condom/lubricant packs to be shipped to any mailing address in the United States. Sexually transmitted infection kits were customized according to study needs and could include materials to collect whole blood, dried blood spots, urine sample, and rectal and pharyngeal swab samples for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia testing. Specimens were mailed back to a central Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved laboratory for testing, and results were returned to participants. RESULTS: CareKit was used by 12 MSM studies and mailed 1132 STI kits to 775 participants between January 2018 and March 2020. Participants returned 507 (45%) STI kits, which included 1594 individual specimens. Eighty-one kits (16%) had at least one positive STI test result: pharyngeal chlamydia (n = 7), pharyngeal gonorrhea (n = 11), rectal chlamydia (n = 15), rectal gonorrhea (n = 12), genital chlamydia (n = 6), genital gonorrhea (n = 1), and syphilis (n = 54). In this same 2-year period, 741 HIV self-test kits were mailed to 643 MSM. CONCLUSIONS: CareKit successfully met studies' needs for home HIV/STI testing and diagnosed many STIs. These processes continue to be adapted for research and programs. The ability to mail home test kits has become increasingly important to reach those who may have limited access to health care services, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in pediatric healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine SARS-CoV-2-antibody prevalence in pediatric healthcare workers (pHCWs). DESIGN: Baseline prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG was assessed in a prospective cohort study from a large pediatric healthcare facility. Prior SARS-CoV-2 testing history, potential risk factors and anxiety level about COVID-19 were determined. Prevalence difference between emergency department (ED)-based and non-ED-pHCWs was modeled controlling for those covariates. Chi-square test-for-trend was used to examine prevalence by month of enrollment. RESULTS: Most of 642 pHCWs enrolled were 31-40years, female and had no comorbidities. Half had children in their home, 49% had traveled, 42% reported an illness since January, 31% had a known COVID-19 exposure, and 8% had SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. High COVID-19 pandemic anxiety was reported by 71%. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG prevalence was 4.1%; 8.4% among ED versus 2.0% among non-ED pHCWs (p < 0.001). ED-work location and known COVID-19 exposure were independent risk factors. 31% of antibody-positive pHCWs reported no symptoms. Prevalence significantly (p < 0.001) increased from 3.0% in April-June to 12.7% in July-August. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG prevalence was low in pHCWs but increased rapidly over time. Both working in the ED and exposure to a COVID-19-positive contact were associated with antibody-seropositivity. Ongoing universal PPE utilization is essential. These data may guide vaccination policies to protect front-line workers.

Willingness to Seek Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 With Home, Drive-through, and Clinic-Based Specimen Collection Locations.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 virus testing for persons with COVID-19 symptoms, and contact tracing for those testing positive, will be critical to successful epidemic control. Willingness of persons experiencing symptoms to seek testing may determine the success of this strategy. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey in the United States measured willingness to seek testing if feeling ill under different specimen collection scenarios: home-based saliva, home-based swab, drive-through facility swab, and clinic-based swab. Instructions clarified that home-collected specimens would be mailed to a laboratory for testing. We presented similar willingness questions regarding testing during follow-up care. RESULTS: Of 1435 participants, comprising a broad range of sociodemographic groups, 92% were willing to test with a home saliva specimen, 88% with home swab, 71% with drive-through swab, and 60% with clinic-collected swab. Moreover, 68% indicated they would be more likely to get tested if there was a home testing option. There were no significant differences in willingness items across sociodemographic variables or for those currently experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. Results were nearly identical for willingness to receive testing for follow-up COVID-19 care. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a hierarchy of willingness to test for SARS-CoV-2, ordered by the degree of contact required. Home specimen collection options could result in up to one-third more symptomatic persons seeking testing, facilitating contact tracing and optimal clinical care. Remote specimen collection options may ease supply chain challenges and decrease the likelihood of nosocomial transmission. As home specimen collection options receive regulatory approval, they should be scaled rapidly by health systems.

Willingness to Use Home Collection Methods to Provide Specimens for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Research: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Innovative laboratory testing approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed to conduct research to establish estimates of prevalence and incidence. Self-specimen collection methods have been successfully used in HIV and sexually transmitted infection research and can provide a feasible opportunity to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing for research purposes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the willingness of adults to use different specimen collection modalities for themselves and children as part of a COVID-19 research study. METHODS: Between March 27 and April 1, 2020, we recruited 1435 adults aged 18 years or older though social media advertisements. Participants completed a survey that included 5-point Likert scale items stating how willing they were to use the following specimen collection testing modalities as part of a research study: home collection of a saliva sample, home collection of a throat swab, home finger-prick blood collection, drive-through site throat swab, clinic throat swab, and clinic blood collection. Additionally, participants indicated how the availability of home-based collection methods would impact their willingness to participate compared to drive-through and clinic-based specimen collection. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman rank correlations to assess if willingness to use each testing modality differed by demographic variables and characteristics of interest. We compared the overall willingness to use each testing modality and estimated effect sizes with Cohen d. RESULTS: We analyzed responses from 1435 participants with a median age of 40.0 (SD=18.2) years and over half of which were female (761/1435, 53.0%). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would be willing to use specimens self-collected at home to participate in research, including willingness to collect a saliva sample (1259/1435, 87.7%) or a throat swab (1191/1435, 83.1%). Willingness to collect a throat swab sample was lower in both a drive-through setting (64%) and clinic setting (53%). Overall, 69.0% (990/1435) of participants said they would be more likely to participate in a research study if they could provide a saliva sample or throat swab at home compared to going to a drive-through site; only 4.4% (63/1435) of participants said they would be less likely to participate using self-collected samples. For each specimen collection modality, willingness to collect specimens from children for research was lower than willingness to use on oneself, but the ranked order of modalities was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants were willing to participate in a COVID-19 research study that involves laboratory testing; however, there was a strong preference for home specimen collection procedures over drive-through or clinic-based testing. To increase participation and minimize bias, epidemiologic research studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response should consider home specimen collection methods.

Similarities and Differences in COVID-19 Awareness, Concern, and Symptoms by Race and Ethnicity in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Existing health disparities based on race and ethnicity in the United States are contributing to disparities in morbidity and mortality during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We conducted an online survey of American adults to assess similarities and differences by race and ethnicity with respect to COVID-19 symptoms, estimates of the extent of the pandemic, knowledge of control measures, and stigma. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe similarities and differences in COVID-19 symptoms, knowledge, and beliefs by race and ethnicity among adults in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey from March 27, 2020 through April 1, 2020. Participants were recruited on social media platforms and completed the survey on a secure web-based survey platform. We used chi-square tests to compare characteristics related to COVID-19 by race and ethnicity. Statistical tests were corrected using the Holm Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 1435 participants completed the survey; 52 (3.6%) were Asian, 158 (11.0%) were non-Hispanic Black, 548 (38.2%) were Hispanic, 587 (40.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and 90 (6.3%) identified as other or multiple races. Only one symptom (sore throat) was found to be different based on race and ethnicity (P=.003); this symptom was less frequently reported by Asian (3/52, 5.8%), non-Hispanic Black (9/158, 5.7%), and other/multiple race (8/90, 8.9%) participants compared to those who were Hispanic (99/548, 18.1%) or non-Hispanic White (95/587, 16.2%). Non-Hispanic White and Asian participants were more likely to estimate that the number of current cases was at least 100,000 (P=.004) and were more likely to answer all 14 COVID-19 knowledge scale questions correctly (Asian participants, 13/52, 25.0%; non-Hispanic White participants, 180/587, 30.7%) compared to Hispanic (108/548, 19.7%) and non-Hispanic Black (25/158, 15.8%) participants. CONCLUSIONS: We observed differences with respect to knowledge of appropriate methods to prevent infection by the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Deficits in knowledge of proper control methods may further exacerbate existing race/ethnicity disparities. Additional research is needed to identify trusted sources of information in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black communities and create effective messaging to disseminate correct COVID-19 prevention and treatment information.

Characterizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Men Who Have Sex with Men Across the United States in April, 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic is reinforcing health inequities among vulnerable populations, including men who have sex with men (MSM). We conducted a rapid online survey (April 2 to April 13, 2020) of COVID-19 related impacts on the sexual health of 1051 US MSM. Many participants had adverse impacts to general wellbeing, social interactions, money, food, drug use and alcohol consumption. Half had fewer sex partners and most had no change in condom access or use. Some reported challenges in accessing HIV testing, prevention and treatment services. Compared to older MSM, those 15-24 years were more likely to report economic and service impacts. While additional studies of COVID-19 epidemiology among MSM are needed, there is already evidence of emerging interruptions to HIV-related services. Scalable remote solutions such as telehealth and mailed testing and prevention supplies may be urgently needed to avert increased HIV incidence among MSM during the COVID-19 pandemic era.