Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264179, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736506

ABSTRACT

As of March 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines had been authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States. Each has substantial efficacy in preventing COVID-19. However, as efficacy from trials was <100% for all three vaccines, disease in vaccinated people is expected to occur. We created a spreadsheet-based tool to estimate the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people (vaccine breakthrough infections) based on published vaccine efficacy (VE) data, percent of the population that has been fully vaccinated, and average number of COVID-19 cases reported per day. We estimate that approximately 199,000 symptomatic vaccine breakthrough infections (95% CI: ~183,000-214,000 cases) occurred in the United States during January-July 2021 among >156 million fully vaccinated people. With high SARS-CoV-2 transmission and increasing numbers of people vaccinated in the United States, vaccine breakthrough infections will continue to accumulate. Understanding expectations regarding number of vaccine breakthrough infections enables accurate public health messaging to help ensure that the occurrence of such cases does not negatively affect vaccine perceptions, confidence, and uptake.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , /statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Incidence , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Jan 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1722274

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are highly efficacious, but SARS-CoV-2 infections post-vaccination occur. We characterized COVID-19 cases among fully vaccinated persons with an outcome of death. METHODS: We analyzed COVID-19 cases voluntarily reported to CDC by US health departments during January 1, 2021-April 30, 2021. We included cases among U.S. residents with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test ≥14 days after completion of an authorized primary vaccine series and who had a known outcome (alive or death) as of May 31, 2021. When available, specimens were sequenced for viral lineage and death certificates were reviewed for cause(s) of death. RESULTS: Of 8,084 reported COVID-19 cases among fully vaccinated persons during the surveillance period, 245 (3.0%) died. Compared with patients who remained alive, those who died were older (median age 82 years vs. 57 years, P <0.01), more likely to reside in a long-term care facility (51% vs. 18%, P <0.01), and more likely to have at least one underlying health condition associated with risk for severe disease (64% vs. 24%, P <0.01). Among 245 deaths, 191 (78%) were classified as COVID-19-related. Of 106 deaths with available death certificates, COVID-19 was listed on 81 (77%). There were no differences in the type of vaccine administered or the most common viral lineage (B.1.1.7). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 deaths are rare in fully vaccinated persons, occurring most commonly in those with risk factors for severe disease, including older age and underlying health conditions. All eligible persons should be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and follow other prevention measures to mitigate exposure risk.

3.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295213

ABSTRACT

As of March 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States. Each has substantial efficacy in preventing COVID-19. However, as efficacy from trials was <100% for all three vaccines, disease in vaccinated people is expected to occur. We created a spreadsheet-based tool to estimate the number of symptomatic vaccine breakthrough infections based on published vaccine efficacy (VE) data, percent of the population that has been fully vaccinated, and average number of COVID-19 cases reported per day. We estimate that approximately 51,000 symptomatic vaccine breakthrough infections (95% CI: ∼48,000–55,000 cases) occurred in the United States during January–April 2021 among >77 million fully vaccinated people, reflecting <0.5% of COVID-19 cases that occurred during that time. With ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and increasing numbers of people vaccinated in the United States, vaccine breakthrough infections will continue to accumulate before population immunity is sufficient to interrupt transmission. Understanding expectations regarding number of vaccine breakthrough infections enables accurate public health messaging to help ensure that the occurrence of such cases does not negatively affect vaccine perceptions, confidence, and uptake.

4.
N Engl J Med ; 385(25): e90, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434203

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , /administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Male , Middle Aged , Polymerase Chain Reaction , United States
5.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 40(3): 100874, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384804

ABSTRACT

We report data regarding three countries with similar healthcare systems which had three different vaccinal strategies between 1st of January and 10th of April 2021: rapid full vaccination (Israel), rapid first-dose vaccination (United Kingdom) and a delayed vaccination strategy (France).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunization Programs/statistics & numerical data , Brazil , COVID-19/virology , France , Humans , Immunization Programs/methods , Immunization Schedule , Israel , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , South Africa , United Kingdom
6.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 40(4): 100931, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1306763

ABSTRACT

AIM: Describing acute respiratory distress syndrome patterns, therapeutics management, and outcomes of ICU COVID-19 patients and indentifying risk factors of 28-day mortality. METHODS: Prospective multicentre, cohort study conducted in 29 French ICUs. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, adjunctive therapies, ventilatory support at ICU admission and survival data were collected. RESULTS: From March to July 2020, 966 patients were enrolled with a median age of 66 (interquartile range 58-73) years and a median SAPS II of 37 (29-48). During the first 24 h of ICU admission, COVID-19 patients received one of the following respiratory supports: mechanical ventilation for 559 (58%), standard oxygen therapy for 228 (24%) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for 179 (19%) patients. Overall, 721 (75%) patients were mechanically ventilated during their ICU stay. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 494 (51%) and 460 (48%) patients, respectively. Bacterial co-infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia were diagnosed in 79 (3%) and 411 (43%) patients, respectively. The overall 28-day mortality was 18%. Age, pre-existing comorbidities, severity of respiratory failure and the absence of antiviral therapy on admission were identified as independent predictors of 28-day outcome. CONCLUSION: Severity of hypoxaemia on admission, older age (> 70 years), cardiovascular and renal comorbidities were associated with worse outcome in COVID-19 patients. Antiviral treatment on admission was identified as a protective factor for 28-day mortality. Ascertaining the outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients is crucial to optimise hospital and ICU resources and provide the appropriate intensity level of care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(20): 753-758, 2021 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1237005

ABSTRACT

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
8.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(5): 1301-1308, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1201501

ABSTRACT

In January 2020, Santa Clara County, California, USA, began identifying laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease among residents. County staff conducted case and contact investigations focused on households and collected detailed case demographic, occupation, exposure, and outcome information. We describe the first 200 test-positive cases during January 31-March 20, 2020, to inform future case and contact investigations. Probable infection sources included community transmission (104 cases), known close contact with a confirmed case-patient (66 cases), and travel (30 cases). Disease patterns across race and ethnicity, occupational, and household factors suggested multiple infection risk factors. Disproportionately high percentages of case-patients from racial and ethnic subgroups worked outside the home (Hispanic [86%] and Filipino [100%]); household transmission was more common among persons from Vietnam (53%). Even with the few initial cases, detailed case and contact investigations of household contacts capturing occupational and disaggregated race and ethnicity data helped identify at-risk groups and focused solutions for disease control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Contact Tracing , California/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vietnam
9.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0249901, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186608

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), evolved rapidly in the United States. This report describes the demographic, clinical, and epidemiologic characteristics of 544 U.S. persons under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 with complete SARS-CoV-2 testing in the beginning stages of the pandemic from January 17 through February 29, 2020. METHODS: In this surveillance cohort, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided consultation to public health and healthcare professionals to identify PUI for SARS-CoV-2 testing by quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR. Demographic, clinical, and epidemiologic characteristics of PUI were reported by public health and healthcare professionals during consultation with on-call CDC clinicians and subsequent submission of a CDC PUI Report Form. Characteristics of laboratory-negative and laboratory-positive persons were summarized as proportions for the period of January 17-February 29, and characteristics of all PUI were compared before and after February 12 using prevalence ratios. RESULTS: A total of 36 PUI tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were classified as confirmed cases. Confirmed cases and PUI testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 had similar demographic, clinical, and epidemiologic characteristics. Consistent with changes in PUI evaluation criteria, 88% (13/15) of confirmed cases detected before February 12, 2020, reported travel from China. After February 12, 57% (12/21) of confirmed cases reported no known travel- or contact-related exposures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can inform preparedness for future pandemics, including capacity for rapid expansion of novel diagnostic tests to accommodate broad surveillance strategies to assess community transmission, including potential contributions from asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Epidemiological Monitoring , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Travel , Travel-Related Illness , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
10.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 39(6): 709-715, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059695

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whereas 5415 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds were initially available, 7148 COVID-19 patients were hospitalised in the ICU at the peak of the outbreak. The present study reports how the French Health Care system created temporary ICU beds to avoid being overwhelmed. METHODS: All French ICUs were contacted for answering a questionnaire focusing on the available beds and health care providers before and during the outbreak. RESULTS: Among 336 institutions with ICUs before the outbreak, 315 (94%) participated, covering 5054/5531 (91%) ICU beds. During the outbreak, 4806 new ICU beds (+95% increase) were created from Acute Care Unit (ACU, 2283), Post Anaesthetic Care Unit and Operating Theatre (PACU & OT, 1522), other units (374) or real build-up of new ICU beds (627), respectively. At the peak of the outbreak, 9860, 1982 and 3089 ICU, ACU and PACU beds were made available. Before the outbreak, 3548 physicians (2224 critical care anaesthesiologists, 898 intensivists and 275 from other specialties, 151 paediatrics), 1785 residents, 11,023 nurses and 6763 nursing auxiliaries worked in established ICUs. During the outbreak, 2524 physicians, 715 residents, 7722 nurses and 3043 nursing auxiliaries supplemented the usual staff in all ICUs. A total number of 3212 new ventilators were added to the 5997 initially available in ICU. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 outbreak, the French Health Care system created 4806 ICU beds (+95% increase from baseline), essentially by transforming beds from ACUs and PACUs. Collaboration between intensivists, critical care anaesthesiologists, emergency physicians as well as the mobilisation of nursing staff were primordial in this context.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospital Bed Capacity/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , National Health Programs , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Bed Conversion/statistics & numerical data , France/epidemiology , Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling/statistics & numerical data , Personnel, Hospital/supply & distribution , Retrospective Studies , Ventilators, Mechanical/supply & distribution
11.
Public Health Rep ; 136(1): 88-96, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894953

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Widespread global transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), continues. Many questions remain about asymptomatic or atypical infections and transmission dynamics. We used comprehensive contact tracing of the first 2 confirmed patients in Illinois with COVID-19 and serologic SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing to determine whether contacts had evidence of undetected COVID-19. METHODS: Contacts were eligible for serologic follow-up if previously tested for COVID-19 during an initial investigation or had greater-risk exposures. Contacts completed a standardized questionnaire during the initial investigation. We classified exposure risk as high, medium, or low based on interactions with 2 index patients and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Serologic testing used a SARS-CoV-2 spike enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on serum specimens collected from participants approximately 6 weeks after initial exposure to either index patient. The 2 index patients provided serum specimens throughout their illness. We collected data on demographic, exposure, and epidemiologic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 347 contacts, 110 were eligible for serologic follow-up; 59 (17% of all contacts) enrolled. Of these, 53 (90%) were health care personnel and 6 (10%) were community contacts. Seventeen (29%) reported high-risk exposures, 15 (25%) medium-risk, and 27 (46%) low-risk. No participant had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The 2 index patients had antibodies detected at dilutions >1:6400 within 4 weeks after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: In serologic follow-up of the first 2 known patients in Illinois with COVID-19, we found no secondary transmission among tested contacts. Lack of seroconversion among these contacts adds to our understanding of conditions (ie, use of PPE) under which SARS-CoV-2 infections might not result in transmission and demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is a useful tool to verify epidemiologic findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/immunology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Humans , Illinois/epidemiology , Male , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
12.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0238342, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-740403

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Contact Tracing , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Child , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Family Characteristics , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel-Related Illness , United States , Young Adult
16.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(18)2020 May 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-153541

ABSTRACT

Congregate work and residential locations are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission including respiratory illness outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is primarily spread person to person through respiratory droplets. Nationwide, the meat and poultry processing industry, an essential component of the U.S. food infrastructure, employs approximately 500,000 persons, many of whom work in proximity to other workers (1). Because of reports of initial cases of COVID-19, in some meat processing facilities, states were asked to provide aggregated data concerning the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19 and the number of workers with COVID-19 in these facilities, including COVID-19-related deaths. Qualitative data gathered by CDC during on-site and remote assessments were analyzed and summarized. During April 9-27, aggregate data on COVID-19 cases among 115 meat or poultry processing facilities in 19 states were reported to CDC. Among these facilities, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,913 (approximately 3%) workers, and 20 COVID-19-related deaths were reported. Facility barriers to effective prevention and control of COVID-19 included difficulty distancing workers at least 6 feet (2 meters) from one another (2) and in implementing COVID-19-specific disinfection guidelines.* Among workers, socioeconomic challenges might contribute to working while feeling ill, particularly if there are management practices such as bonuses that incentivize attendance. Methods to decrease transmission within the facility include worker symptom screening programs, policies to discourage working while experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19, and social distancing by workers. Source control measures (e.g., the use of cloth face covers) as well as increased disinfection of high-touch surfaces are also important means of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Mitigation efforts to reduce transmission in the community should also be considered. Many of these measures might also reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission (3). Implementation of these public health strategies will help protect workers from COVID-19 in this industry and assist in preserving the critical meat and poultry production infrastructure (4).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Food-Processing Industry , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Animals , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Meat , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Poultry , United States/epidemiology
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(14): 419-421, 2020 Apr 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-31687

ABSTRACT

On February 27, 2020, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD) identified its first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with probable community transmission (i.e., infection among persons without a known exposure by travel or close contact with a patient with confirmed COVID-19). At the time the investigation began, testing guidance recommended focusing on persons with clinical findings of lower respiratory illness and travel to an affected area or an epidemiologic link to a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case, or on persons hospitalized for severe respiratory disease and no alternative diagnosis (1). To rapidly understand the extent of COVID-19 in the community, SCCPHD, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and CDC began sentinel surveillance in Santa Clara County. During March 5-14, 2020, four urgent care centers in Santa Clara County participated as sentinel sites. For this investigation, county residents evaluated for respiratory symptoms (e.g., fever, cough, or shortness of breath) who had no known risk for COVID-19 were identified at participating urgent care centers. A convenience sample of specimens that tested negative for influenza virus was tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Among 226 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 23% had positive test results for influenza. Among patients who had negative test results for influenza, 79 specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 11% had evidence of infection. This sentinel surveillance system helped confirm community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County. As a result of these data and an increasing number of cases with no known source of transmission, the county initiated a series of community mitigation strategies. Detection of community transmission is critical for informing response activities, including testing criteria, quarantine guidance, investigation protocols, and community mitigation measures (2). Sentinel surveillance in outpatient settings and emergency departments, implemented together with hospital-based surveillance, mortality surveillance, and serologic surveys, can provide a robust approach to monitor the epidemiology of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Community-Acquired Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Sentinel Surveillance , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , California/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL