Performance Characteristics of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test in Comparison to Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR and Viral Culture in Community Testing Sites during November 2020.

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease, or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During 3 to 17 November 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status, and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here, we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8 to 10 days postexposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 h for BinaxNOW and 26 h for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turnaround time than laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.

Clinical outcomes of monoclonal antibody therapy during a COVID-19 outbreak in a skilled nursing facility-Arizona, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Adult residents of skilled nursing facilities (SNF) have experienced high morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease. Use of monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment improves clinical outcomes among high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, but information on mAb effectiveness in SNF residents with COVID-19 is limited. We assessed outcomes in SNF residents with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 associated with an outbreak in Arizona during January-February 2021 that did and did not receive a mAb. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed to describe the effect of bamlanivimab therapy on COVID-19 mortality. Secondary outcomes included referral to an acute care setting and escalation of medical therapies at the SNF (e.g., new oxygen requirements). Residents treated with bamlanivimab were compared to residents who were eligible for treatment under the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) but were not treated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine association between outcomes and treatment status. RESULTS: Seventy-five residents identified with COVID-19 during this outbreak met eligibility for mAb treatment, of whom 56 received bamlanivimab. Treated and untreated groups were similar in age and comorbidities associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with reduced 21-day mortality (adjusted OR = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.39) and lower odds of initiating oxygen therapy (adjusted OR = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.34). Referrals to acute care were not significantly different between treated and untreated residents. CONCLUSIONS: mAb therapy was successfully administered to SNF residents with COVID-19 in a large outbreak setting. Treatment with bamlanivimab reduced 21-day mortality and reduced initiation of oxygen therapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and newer immunotherapies gain FDA authorization, more studies of the effectiveness of mAb therapies for treating emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in high-risk congregate settings are needed.

e-Health for COVID-19 Epidemic: The Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center Experience.

Background: A significant challenge of the COVID-19 epidemic was the dissemination of accurate and timely information to the public, health care providers, and first responders. We describe the expansion of the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center (APDIC) to fill such a need for residents of Arizona. Methodology: The original mission of the APDIC was recognition and management of chemical exposure, poisoning, envenomation, and drug-related medical problems. In response to COVID-19, APDIC expanded its personnel and facilities to accommodate telephone calls and teleconsults regarding COVID-19. Thirteen different topics dealing with COVID-19 were addressed and tracked and included: testing information, isolation, prevention, personal protective equipment, travel, vaccines, therapies, antibody testing, contact tracing, exposure to the virus and what to do in businesses, at work or at school regarding isolation and quarantine. Results: Responding to the public health needs, APDIC accepted >320,000 telephone calls and completed 48,346 teleconsults from March 3, 2020 to March 3, 2021. This represented a 15-fold increase in calls and twice the number of consults over 2019. Upon release of the vaccine, calls increased sharply with >7,000 calls in 1 day (February 7, 2021). Conclusion: In conclusion, the APDIC, rapidly expanded to address urgent public health information needs surrounding COVID-19 while still accomplishing its founding mission.

Intersecting Paths of Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shares common clinicopathologic features with other severe pulmonary illnesses. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome was diagnosed in 2 patients in Arizona, USA, suspected of dying from infection with SARS-CoV-2. Differential diagnoses and possible co-infections should be considered for cases of respiratory distress during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Evaluation of Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Two Community-Based Testing Sites - Pima County, Arizona, November 3-17, 2020.

Rapid antigen tests, such as the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), offer results more rapidly (approximately 15-30 minutes) and at a lower cost than do highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (1). Rapid antigen tests have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in symptomatic persons (2), but data are lacking on test performance in asymptomatic persons to inform expanded screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons (3). To evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, it was used along with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to analyze 3,419 paired specimens collected from persons aged ≥10 years at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona, during November 3-17, 2020. Viral culture was performed on 274 of 303 residual real-time RT-PCR specimens with positive results by either test (29 were not available for culture). Compared with real-time RT-PCR testing, the BinaxNOW antigen test had a sensitivity of 64.2% for specimens from symptomatic persons and 35.8% for specimens from asymptomatic persons, with near 100% specificity in specimens from both groups. Virus was cultured from 96 of 274 (35.0%) specimens, including 85 (57.8%) of 147 with concordant antigen and real-time RT-PCR positive results, 11 (8.9%) of 124 with false-negative antigen test results, and none of three with false-positive antigen test results. Among specimens positive for viral culture, sensitivity was 92.6% for symptomatic and 78.6% for asymptomatic individuals. When the pretest probability for receiving positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 is elevated (e.g., in symptomatic persons or in persons with a known COVID-19 exposure), a negative antigen test result should be confirmed by NAAT (1). Despite a lower sensitivity to detect infection, rapid antigen tests can be an important tool for screening because of their quick turnaround time, lower costs and resource needs, high specificity, and high positive predictive value (PPV) in settings of high pretest probability. The faster turnaround time of the antigen test can help limit transmission by more rapidly identifying infectious persons for isolation, particularly when used as a component of serial testing strategies.

COVID-19 Mortality Among American Indian and Alaska Native Persons - 14 States, January-June 2020.

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons experienced disproportionate mortality during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic (1,2). Concerns of a similar trend during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the formation of a workgroup* to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 deaths in the AI/AN population. As of December 2, 2020, CDC has reported 2,689 COVID-19-associated deaths among non-Hispanic AI/AN persons in the United States.† A recent analysis found that the cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among AI/AN persons was 3.5 times that among White persons (3). Among 14 participating states, the age-adjusted AI/AN COVID-19 mortality rate (55.8 deaths per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 52.5-59.3) was 1.8 (95% CI = 1.7-2.0) times that among White persons (30.3 deaths per 100,000; 95% CI = 29.9-30.7). Although COVID-19 mortality rates increased with age among both AI/AN and White persons, the disparity was largest among those aged 20-49 years. Among persons aged 20-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years, the COVID-19 mortality rates among AI/AN were 10.5, 11.6, and 8.2 times, respectively, those among White persons. Evidence that AI/AN communities might be at increased risk for COVID-19 illness and death demonstrates the importance of documenting and understanding the reasons for these disparities while developing collaborative approaches with federal, state, municipal, and tribal agencies to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on AI/AN communities. Together, public health partners can plan for medical countermeasures and prevention activities for AI/AN communities.

Trends in COVID-19 Incidence After Implementation of Mitigation Measures - Arizona, January 22-August 7, 2020.

Mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), requires individual, community, and state public health actions to prevent person-to-person transmission. Community mitigation measures can help slow the spread of COVID-19; these measures include wearing masks, social distancing, reducing the number and size of large gatherings, pausing operation of businesses where maintaining social distancing is challenging, working from or staying at home, and implementing certain workplace and educational institution controls (1-4). The Arizona Department of Health Services' (ADHS) recommendations for mitigating exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were informed by continual monitoring of patient demographics, SARS-CoV-2 community spread, and the pandemic's impacts on hospitals. To assess the effect of mitigation strategies in Arizona, the numbers of daily COVID-19 cases and 7-day moving averages during January 22-August 7, 2020, relative to implementation of enhanced community mitigation measures, were examined. The average number of daily cases increased approximately 151%, from 808 on June 1, 2020 to 2,026 on June 15, 2020 (after stay-at-home order lifted), necessitating increased preventive measures. On June 17, local officials began implementing and enforcing mask wearing (via county and city mandates),* affecting approximately 85% of the state population. Statewide mitigation measures included limitation of public events; closures of bars, gyms, movie theaters, and water parks; reduced restaurant dine-in capacity; and voluntary resident action to stay at home and wear masks (when and where not mandated). The number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona peaked during June 29-July 2, stabilized during July 3-July 12, and further declined by approximately 75% during July 13-August 7. Widespread implementation and enforcement of sustained community mitigation measures informed by state and local officials' continual data monitoring and collaboration can help prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and decrease the numbers of COVID-19 cases.

An Early Pandemic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Population Structure and Dynamics in Arizona.

In December of 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, causing severe morbidity and mortality. Since then, the virus has swept across the globe, causing millions of confirmed infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths. To better understand the nature of the pandemic and the introduction and spread of the virus in Arizona, we sequenced viral genomes from clinical samples tested at the TGen North Clinical Laboratory, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and those collected as part of community surveillance projects at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. Phylogenetic analysis of 84 genomes from across Arizona revealed a minimum of 11 distinct introductions inferred to have occurred during February and March. We show that >80% of our sequences descend from strains that were initially circulating widely in Europe but have since dominated the outbreak in the United States. In addition, we show that the first reported case of community transmission in Arizona descended from the Washington state outbreak that was discovered in late February. Notably, none of the observed transmission clusters are epidemiologically linked to the original travel-related case in the state, suggesting successful early isolation and quarantine. Finally, we use molecular clock analyses to demonstrate a lack of identifiable, widespread cryptic transmission in Arizona prior to the middle of February 2020.IMPORTANCE As the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States, there was great differential impact on local and regional communities. One of the earliest and hardest hit regions was in New York, while at the same time Arizona (for example) had low incidence. That situation has changed dramatically, with Arizona now having the highest rate of disease increase in the country. Understanding the roots of the pandemic during the initial months is essential as the pandemic continues and reaches new heights. Genomic analysis and phylogenetic modeling of SARS-COV-2 in Arizona can help to reconstruct population composition and predict the earliest undetected introductions. This foundational work represents the basis for future analysis and understanding as the pandemic continues.

Serious Adverse Health Events, Including Death, Associated with Ingesting Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers Containing Methanol - Arizona and New Mexico, May-June 2020.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer is a liquid, gel, or foam that contains ethanol or isopropanol used to disinfect hands. Hand hygiene is an important component of the U.S. response to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). If soap and water are not readily available, CDC recommends the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products that contain at least 60% ethyl alcohol (ethanol) or 70% isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) in community settings (1); in health care settings, CDC recommendations specify that alcohol-based hand sanitizer products should contain 60%-95% alcohol (≥60% ethanol or ≥70% isopropanol) (2). According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates alcohol-based hand sanitizers as an over-the-counter drug, methanol (methyl alcohol) is not an acceptable ingredient. Cases of ethanol toxicity following ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products have been reported in persons with alcohol use disorder (3,4). On June 30, 2020, CDC received notification from public health partners in Arizona and New Mexico of cases of methanol poisoning associated with ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizers. The case reports followed an FDA consumer alert issued on June 19, 2020, warning about specific hand sanitizers that contain methanol. Whereas early clinical effects of methanol and ethanol poisoning are similar (e.g., headache, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, loss of coordination, and decreased level of consciousness), persons with methanol poisoning might develop severe anion-gap metabolic acidosis, seizures, and blindness. If left untreated methanol poisoning can be fatal (5). Survivors of methanol poisoning might have permanent visual impairment, including complete vision loss; data suggest that vision loss results from the direct toxic effect of formate, a toxic anion metabolite of methanol, on the optic nerve (6). CDC and state partners established a case definition of alcohol-based hand sanitizer-associated methanol poisoning and reviewed 62 poison center call records from May 1 through June 30, 2020, to characterize reported cases. Medical records were reviewed to abstract details missing from poison center call records. During this period, 15 adult patients met the case definition, including persons who were American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN). All had ingested an alcohol-based hand sanitizer and were subsequently admitted to a hospital. Four patients died and three were discharged with vision impairment. Persons should never ingest alcohol-based hand sanitizer, avoid use of specific imported products found to contain methanol, and continue to monitor FDA guidance (7). Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for methanol poisoning when evaluating adult or pediatric patients with reported swallowing of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer product or with symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings (e.g., elevated anion-gap metabolic acidosis) compatible with methanol poisoning. Treatment of methanol poisoning includes supportive care, correction of acidosis, administration of an alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor (e.g., fomepizole), and frequently, hemodialysis.