Pandemic Telemedicine Adoption Trends in a Predominantly Rural Integrated Health System.

Between March 2020 and February 2022, use of telemedicine services in the U.S. shifted dramatically in response to the evolving SARS-CoV2 pandemic. The initial wave caused many non-emergent clinical services to be postponed, including specialty care clinic visits, which were rapidly converted to telemedicine encounters. Telemedicine use ebbed and flowed with subsequent pandemic waves. This paper describes trends in telemedicine use from March 2020-February 2022 at Geisinger, a predominantly rural integrated health system. It highlights characteristics of 5,390 virtual vs. 15,740 in-person clinic visits to neurosurgery and gastroenterology specialists in December 2021 and January 2022. Differences in ordering of diagnostic testing and prescription medications, as well as post-clinic-visit utilization, varied by specialty. Virtual visits in these specialties saved patients from traveling over 174,700 miles/month to attend appointments. Analyzing telemedicine use patterns can inform future resource allocation and determine when virtual encounters can complement or replace in-person specialty care visits.

Longitudinal Trends in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Profiles and Complications Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Infection: Results From the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved through multiple phases characterized by new viral variants, vaccine development, and changes in therapies. It is unknown whether rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor profiles and complications have changed over time. METHODS: We analyzed the American Heart Association COVID-19 CVD registry, a national multicenter registry of hospitalized adults with active COVID-19 infection. The time period from April 2020 to December 2021 was divided into 3-month epochs, with March 2020 analyzed separately as a potential outlier. Participating centers varied over the study period. Trends in all-cause in-hospital mortality, CVD risk factors, and in-hospital CVD outcomes, including a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, new heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction, were evaluated across time epochs. Risk-adjusted analyses were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 46 007 patient admissions from 134 hospitals were included (mean patient age 61.8 years, 53% male, 22% Black race). Patients admitted later in the pandemic were younger, more likely obese, and less likely to have existing CVD (Ptrend ≤0.001 for each). The incidence of the primary outcome increased from 7.0% in March 2020 to 9.8% in October to December 2021 (risk-adjusted Ptrend=0.006). This was driven by an increase in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and stroke (Ptrend<0.0001 for each). The overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 14.2%, which declined over time (20.8% in March 2020 versus 10.8% in the last epoch; adjusted Ptrend<0.0001). When the analysis was restricted to July 2020 to December 2021, no temporal change in all-cause mortality was seen (adjusted Ptrend=0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a shifting risk factor profile toward a younger population with lower rates of established CVD, the incidence of diagnosed cardiovascular complications of COVID increased from the onset of the pandemic through December 2021. All-cause mortality decreased during the initial months of the pandemic and thereafter remained consistently high through December 2021.

Nationally representative social contact patterns among U.S. adults, August 2020-April 2021.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S prompted abrupt and dramatic changes to social contact patterns. Monitoring changing social behavior is essential to provide reliable input data for mechanistic models of infectious disease, which have been increasingly used to support public health policy to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. While some studies have reported on changing contact patterns throughout the pandemic, few have reported differences in contact patterns among key demographic groups and none have reported nationally representative estimates. We conducted a national probability survey of US households and collected information on social contact patterns during two time periods: August-December 2020 (before widespread vaccine availability) and March-April 2021 (during national vaccine rollout). Overall, contact rates in Spring 2021 were similar to those in Fall 2020, with most contacts reported at work. Persons identifying as non-White, non-Black, non-Asian, and non-Hispanic reported high numbers of contacts relative to other racial and ethnic groups. Contact rates were highest in those reporting occupations in retail, hospitality and food service, and transportation. Those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies reported a higher number of daily contacts than those who were seronegative. Our findings provide evidence for differences in social behavior among demographic groups, highlighting the profound disparities that have become the hallmark of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Cumulative Incidence and Period Seroprevalence: Results From a Statewide Population-Based Serosurvey in California.

BACKGROUND: California has reported the largest number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases of any US state, with more than 3.5 million confirmed as of March 2021. However, the full breadth of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in California is unknown as reported cases only represent a fraction of all infections. METHODS: We conducted a population-based serosurvey, utilizing mailed, home-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing along with a demographic and behavioral survey. We weighted data from a random sample to represent the adult California population and estimated period seroprevalence overall and by participant characteristics. Seroprevalence estimates were adjusted for waning antibodies to produce statewide estimates of cumulative incidence, the infection fatality ratio (IFR), and the reported fraction. RESULTS: California's SARS-CoV-2 weighted seroprevalence during August-December 2020 was 4.6% (95% CI, 2.8%-7.4%). Estimated cumulative incidence as of November 2, 2020, was 8.7% (95% CrI, 6.4%-11.5%), indicating that 2 660 441 adults (95% CrI, 1 959 218-3 532 380) had been infected. The estimated IFR was 0.8% (95% CrI, 0.6%-1.0%), and the estimated percentage of infections reported to the California Department of Public Health was 31%. Disparately high risk for infection was observed among persons of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and people with no health insurance and who reported working outside the home. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first statewide SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence estimate among adults in California. As of November 2020, ~1 in 3 SARS-CoV-2 infections in California adults had been identified by public health surveillance. When accounting for unreported SARS-CoV-2 infections, disparities by race/ethnicity seen in case-based surveillance persist.

Application of the Salient Practices Framework for Undergraduate Research Mentoring in Virtual Environments.

Undergraduate research is an excellent example of student engagement that leads to numerous benefits for the student and faculty. However, for students to gain the most from the experience, high-quality mentorship is needed. This article introduces readers to the Salient Practices framework, which is based on a comprehensive review of the research on undergraduate research mentorship as well as models of mentoring applied to the undergraduate research context. This article outlines how a group of faculty applied a mentor constellation model and adapted the Salient Practices framework to the virtual environment that resulted from COVID-19, creating a rich professional development experience for all participants. Lessons learned from initial efforts to mentoring in the virtual environment are also discussed. Implementation of mentoring in a virtual context opens up opportunities for increased access and broadening of research teams and mentoring constellations.

Associations between Google Search Trends for Symptoms and COVID-19 Confirmed and Death Cases in the United States.

We utilize functional data analysis techniques to investigate patterns of COVID-19 positivity and mortality in the US and their associations with Google search trends for COVID-19-related symptoms. Specifically, we represent state-level time series data for COVID-19 and Google search trends for symptoms as smoothed functional curves. Given these functional data, we explore the modes of variation in the data using functional principal component analysis (FPCA). We also apply functional clustering analysis to identify patterns of COVID-19 confirmed case and death trajectories across the US. Moreover, we quantify the associations between Google COVID-19 search trends for symptoms and COVID-19 confirmed case and death trajectories using dynamic correlation. Finally, we examine the dynamics of correlations for the top nine Google search trends of symptoms commonly associated with COVID-19 confirmed case and death trajectories. Our results reveal and characterize distinct patterns for COVID-19 spread and mortality across the US. The dynamics of these correlations suggest the feasibility of using Google queries to forecast COVID-19 cases and mortality for up to three weeks in advance. Our results and analysis framework set the stage for the development of predictive models for forecasting COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths using historical data and Google search trends for nine symptoms associated with both outcomes.

CCR5 inhibition in critical COVID-19 patients decreases inflammatory cytokines, increases CD8 T-cells, and decreases SARS-CoV2 RNA in plasma by day 14.

OBJECTIVE: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is now a global pandemic. Emerging results indicate a dysregulated immune response. Given the role of CCR5 in immune cell migration and inflammation, we investigated the impact of CCR5 blockade via the CCR5-specific antibody leronlimab on clinical, immunological, and virological parameters in severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In March 2020, 10 terminally ill, critical COVID-19 patients received two doses of leronlimab via individual emergency use indication. We analyzed changes in clinical presentation, immune cell populations, inflammation, as well as SARS-CoV-2 plasma viremia before and 14 days after treatment. RESULTS: Over the 14-day study period, six patients survived, two were extubated, and one discharged. We observed complete CCR5 receptor occupancy in all donors by day 7. Compared with the baseline, we observed a concomitant statistically significant reduction in plasma IL-6, restoration of the CD4/CD8 ratio, and resolution of SARS-CoV2 plasma viremia (pVL). Furthermore, the increase in the CD8 percentage was inversely correlated with the reduction in pVL (r = -0.77, p = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: Our study design precludes clinical efficacy inferences but the results implicate CCR5 as a therapeutic target for COVID-19 and they form the basis for ongoing randomized clinical trials.

Risk for COVID-19 infection and death among Latinos in the United States: examining heterogeneity in transmission dynamics.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to ascertain COVID-19 transmission dynamics among Latino communities nationally. METHODS: We compared predictors of COVID-19 cases and deaths between disproportionally Latino counties (≥17.8% Latino population) and all other counties through May 11, 2020. Adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) were estimated using COVID-19 cases and deaths via zero-inflated binomial regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 diagnoses rates were greater in Latino counties nationally (90.9 vs. 82.0 per 100,000). In multivariable analysis, COVID-19 cases were greater in Northeastern and Midwestern Latino counties (aRR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.11-1.84, and aRR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.57-1.85, respectively). COVID-19 deaths were greater in Midwestern Latino counties (aRR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.34). COVID-19 diagnoses were associated with counties with greater monolingual Spanish speakers, employment rates, heart disease deaths, less social distancing, and days since the first reported case. COVID-19 deaths were associated with household occupancy density, air pollution, employment, days since the first reported case, and age (fewer <35 yo). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 risks and deaths among Latino populations differ by region. Structural factors place Latino populations and particularly monolingual Spanish speakers at elevated risk for COVID-19 acquisition.

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.

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.

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.

Monitoring Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Through Trends in Influenza-like Illness, Laboratory-confirmed Influenza, and COVID-19-New York State, Excluding New York City, 1 January 2020-12 April 2020.

Innovative monitoring approaches are needed to track the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic and potentially assess the impact of community mitigation interventions. We present temporal data on influenza-like illness, influenza diagnosis, and COVID-19 cases for all 4 regions of New York State through the first 6 weeks of the outbreak.

COVID-19 Testing, Epidemic Features, Hospital Outcomes, and Household Prevalence, New York State-March 2020.

BACKGROUND: The US' coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has grown extensively since February 2020, with substantial associated hospitalizations and mortality; New York State has emerged as the national epicenter. We report on the extent of testing and test results during the month of March in New York State, along with risk factors, outcomes, and household prevalence among initial cases subject to in-depth investigations. METHODS: Specimen collection for COVID-19 testing was conducted in healthcare settings, community-based collection sites, and by home testing teams. Information on demographics, risk factors, and hospital outcomes of cases was obtained through epidemiological investigations and an electronic medical records match, and summarized descriptively. Active testing of initial case's households enabled estimation of household prevalence. RESULTS: During March in New York State, outside of New York City, a total of 47 326 persons tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, out of 141 495 tests (33% test-positive), with the highest number of cases located in the metropolitan region counties. Among 229 initial cases diagnosed through 12 March, by 30 March 13% were hospitalized and 2% died. Testing conducted among 498 members of these case's households found prevalent infection among 57%, excluding first-reported cases 38%. In these homes, we found a significant age gradient in prevalence, from 23% among those < 5 years to 68% among those ≥ 65 years (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: New York State faced a substantial and increasing COVID-19 outbreak during March 2020. The earliest cases had high levels of infection in their households and by the end of the month, the risks of hospitalization and death were high.