Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Diagnostic Clinical Decision Support: A Pre-Post Implementation Study of CORAL (COvid Risk cALculator).

BACKGROUND: Isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reduces nosocomial transmission risk. Efficient evaluation of PUIs is needed to preserve scarce healthcare resources. We describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of an inpatient diagnostic algorithm and clinical decision support system (CDSS) to evaluate PUIs. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post study of CORAL (COvid Risk cALculator), a CDSS that guides frontline clinicians through a risk-stratified COVID-19 diagnostic workup, removes transmission-based precautions when workup is complete and negative, and triages complex cases to infectious diseases (ID) physician review. Before CORAL, ID physicians reviewed all PUI records to guide workup and precautions. After CORAL, frontline clinicians evaluated PUIs directly using CORAL. We compared pre- and post-CORAL frequency of repeated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), time from NAAT result to PUI status discontinuation, total duration of PUI status, and ID physician work hours, using linear and logistic regression, adjusted for COVID-19 incidence. RESULTS: Fewer PUIs underwent repeated testing after an initial negative NAAT after CORAL than before CORAL (54% vs 67%, respectively; adjusted odd ratio, 0.53 [95% confidence interval, .44-.63]; P < .01). CORAL significantly reduced average time to PUI status discontinuation (adjusted difference [standard error], -7.4 [0.8] hours per patient), total duration of PUI status (-19.5 [1.9] hours per patient), and average ID physician work-hours (-57.4 [2.0] hours per day) (all P < .01). No patients had a positive NAAT result within 7 days after discontinuation of precautions via CORAL. CONCLUSIONS: CORAL is an efficient and effective CDSS to guide frontline clinicians through the diagnostic evaluation of PUIs and safe discontinuation of precautions.

Insurance coverage and financing landscape for HIV treatment and prevention in the USA.

In 2010, the US health insurance system underwent one of its most substantial transformations with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which increased coverage for millions of people in the USA, including those with and at risk of HIV. Even so, the system of HIV care and prevention services in the USA is a complex patchwork of payers, providers, and financing mechanisms. People with HIV are primarily covered by Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or a combination of these; many get care through other programmes, particularly the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which serves as the nation's safety net for people with HIV who remain uninsured or underinsured but offers modest to no support for prevention services. While uninsurance has drastically declined over the past decade, the USA trails other high-income countries in key HIV-specific metrics, including rates of viral suppression. In this paper in the Series, we provide an overview of the coverage and financing landscape for HIV treatment and prevention in the USA, discuss how the Affordable Care Act has changed the domestic health-care system, examine the major programmes that provide coverage and services, and identify remaining challenges.

COVID-19 screening strategies that permit the safe re-opening of college campuses

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges: either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences. OBJECTIVE: To define SARS-CoV-2 screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to campus for the Fall 2020 semester. DESIGN: Decision and cost-effectiveness analysis linked to a compartmental epidemic model to evaluate campus screening using tests of varying frequency (daily-weekly), sensitivity (70%-99%), specificity (98%-99.7%), and cost ($10-$50/test). Reproductive numbers Rt = {1.5, 2.5, 3.5} defined three epidemic scenarios, with additional infections imported via exogenous shocks. We generally adhered to US government guidance for parameterization data. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 5000 college-age, uninfected students. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Cumulative tests, infections, and costs;daily isolation dormitory census;incremental cost-effectiveness;and budget impact. All measured over an 80-day, abbreviated semester. RESULTS: With Rt = 2.5, daily screening with a 70% sensitive, 98% specific test produces 85 cumulative student infections and isolation dormitory daily census averaging 108 (88% false positives). Screening every 2 (7) days nets 135 (3662) cumulative infections and daily isolation census 66 (252) with 73% (4%) false positives. Across all scenarios, test frequency exerts more influence on outcomes than test sensitivity. Cost-effectiveness analysis selects screening every {2, 1, 7} days with a 70% sensitive test as the preferred strategy for Rt = {2.5, 3.5, 1.5}, implying a screening cost of {$470, $920, $120} per student per semester. Conclusions & Relevance: Rapid, inexpensive and frequently conducted screening (even if only 70% sensitive) would be cost-effective and produce a modest number of COVID-19 infections. While the optimal screening frequency hinges on the success of behavioral interventions to reduce the base severity of transmission (Rt), this could permit the safe return of student to campus.

Outcomes from an infectious disease physician-guided evaluation of hospitalized persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center.

We describe an approach to the evaluation and isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center. Only a small proportion (2.9%) of PUIs with 1 or more repeated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) after a negative NAAT were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Call to action: how can the US Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative succeed?

With more than 1·2 million people living with HIV in the USA, a complex epidemic across the large and diverse country, and a fragmented health-care system marked by widening health disparities, the US HIV epidemic requires sustained scientific and public health attention. The epidemic has been stubbornly persistent; high incidence densities have been sustained over decades and the epidemic is increasingly concentrated among racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minority communities. This fact remains true despite extraordinary scientific advances in prevention, treatment, and care-advances that have been led, to a substantial degree, by US-supported science and researchers. In this watershed year of 2021 and in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that the USA will not meet the stated goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, particularly those goals relating to reductions in new infections, decreases in morbidity, and reductions in HIV stigma. The six papers in the Lancet Series on HIV in the USA have each examined the underlying causes of these challenges and laid out paths forward for an invigorated, sustained, and more equitable response to the US HIV epidemic than has been seen to date. The sciences of HIV surveillance, prevention, treatment, and implementation all suggest that the visionary goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in the USA might be achievable. However, fundamental barriers and challenges need to be addressed and the research effort sustained if we are to succeed.

Clinical, Laboratory, and Radiologic Characteristics of Patients With Initial False-Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Results.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about false-negative (FN) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have prompted recommendations for repeat testing if suspicion for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is moderate to high. However, the frequency of FNs and patient characteristics associated with FNs are poorly understood. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed test results from 15 011 adults who underwent ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 NAATs; 2699 had an initial negative NAAT and repeat testing. We defined FNs as ≥1 negative NAATs followed by a positive NAAT within 14 days during the same episode of illness. We stratified subjects with FNs by duration of symptoms before the initial FN test (≤5 days versus >5 days) and examined their clinical, radiologic, and laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: Sixty of 2699 subjects (2.2%) had a FN result during the study period. The weekly frequency of FNs among subjects with repeat testing peaked at 4.4%, coinciding with peak NAAT positivity (38%). Most subjects with FNs had symptoms (52 of 60; 87%) and chest radiography (19 of 32; 59%) consistent with COVID-19. Of the FN NAATs, 18 of 60 (30%) were performed early (ie, ≤1 day of symptom onset), and 18 of 60 (30%) were performed late (ie, >7 days after symptom onset) in disease. Among 17 subjects with 2 consecutive FNs on NP NAATs, 9 (53%) provided lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens for testing, all of which were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support repeated NAATs among symptomatic patients, particularly during periods of higher COVID-19 incidence. The LRT testing should be prioritized to increase yield among patients with high clinical suspicion for COVID-19.

Clinical Outcomes Of A COVID-19 Vaccine: Implementation Over Efficacy.

The global effort to develop a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is on track to produce one or more authorized vaccines. We examine how different definitions and thresholds of vaccine efficacy, coupled with different levels of implementation effectiveness and background epidemic severity, translate into outcomes including cumulative infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Using a mathematical simulation of vaccination, we find that factors related to implementation will contribute more to the success of vaccination programs than a vaccine's efficacy as determined in clinical trials. The benefits of a vaccine will decline substantially in the event of manufacturing or deployment delays, significant vaccine hesitancy, or greater epidemic severity. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for health officials to invest greater financial resources and attention to vaccine production and distribution programs, to redouble efforts to promote public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and to encourage continued adherence to other mitigation approaches, even after a vaccine becomes available.

Estimating Shortages in Capacity to Deliver Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, New York encountered shortages in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) capacity for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury stage 3 requiring dialysis. To inform planning for current and future crises, we estimated CKRT demand and capacity during the initial wave of the US COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We developed mathematical models to project nationwide and statewide CKRT demand and capacity. Data sources included the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model, the Harvard Global Health Institute model, and published literature. SETTING & POPULATION: US patients hospitalized during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February 6, 2020, to August 4, 2020). INTERVENTION: CKRT. OUTCOMES: CKRT demand and capacity at peak resource use; number of states projected to encounter CKRT shortages. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME: Health sector perspective with a 6-month time horizon. RESULTS: Under base-case model assumptions, there was a nationwide CKRT capacity of 7,032 machines, an estimated shortage of 1,088 (95% uncertainty interval, 910-1,568) machines, and shortages in 6 states at peak resource use. In sensitivity analyses, varying assumptions around: (1) the number of pre-COVID-19 surplus CKRT machines available and (2) the incidence of acute kidney injury stage 3 requiring dialysis requiring CKRT among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 resulted in projected shortages in 3 to 8 states (933-1,282 machines) and 4 to 8 states (945-1,723 machines), respectively. In the best- and worst-case scenarios, there were shortages in 3 and 26 states (614 and 4,540 machines). LIMITATIONS: Parameter estimates are influenced by assumptions made in the absence of published data for CKRT capacity and by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model's limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Several US states are projected to encounter CKRT shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings, although based on limited data for CKRT demand and capacity, suggest there being value during health care crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in establishing an inpatient kidney replacement therapy national registry and maintaining a national stockpile of CKRT equipment.