Should I vote-by-mail or in person? The impact of COVID-19 risk factors and partisanship on vote mode decisions in the 2020 presidential election.

While the evidence is clear that 2020 voters shifted away from Election Day voting in favor of vote-by-mail and early voting, we know very little about how health risk versus party polarization around risk assessment influenced how and when to vote. We rely on individual-level observational data in the form of high-quality official voter administrative records from the State of New Mexico to ask how pandemic-related risk factors, especially voter age along with partisanship influenced voter decision-making. To identify causal factors, we use a difference-in-differences design and hazard model that compare 2020 general election and primary voter behavior to 2018 and 2016. We find that age and party were large factors in vote mode decisions in 2020, but not in 2016 or 2018. We consider the implications of our findings on how health risk and partisanship interact to influence decision-making.

Autoantibodies to two novel peptides in seronegative and early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Despite recent progress in biomarker discovery for RA diagnostics, still over one-third of RA patients-and even more in early disease-present without RF or ACPA. The aim of this study was to confirm the presence of previously identified autoantibodies to novel Hasselt University (UH) peptides in early and seronegative RA. METHODS: Screening for antibodies against novel UH peptides UH-RA.1, UH-RA.9, UH-RA.14 and UH-RA.21, was performed in two large independent cohorts. Peptide ELISAs were developed to screen for the presence of antibodies to UH-RA peptides. First, 292 RA patients (including 39 early patients), 90 rheumatic and 97 healthy controls from UH were studied. Antibody reactivity to two peptides (UH-RA.1 and UH-RA.21) was also evaluated in 600 RA patients, 309 patients with undifferentiated arthritis and 157 rheumatic controls from the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort. RESULTS: In both cohorts, 38% of RA patients were seronegative for RF and ACPA. Testing for autoantibodies to UH-RA.1 and UH-RA.21 reduced the serological gap from 38% to 29% in the UH cohort (P = 0.03) and from 38% to 32% in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort (P = 0.01). Furthermore, 19-33% of early RA patients carried antibodies to these peptides. Specificities in rheumatic controls ranged from 82 to 96%. Whereas antibodies against UH-RA.1 were related to remission, anti-UH-RA.21 antibodies were associated with inflammation, joint erosion and higher tender and swollen joint counts. CONCLUSION: This study validates the presence of antibody reactivity to novel UH-RA peptides in seronegative and early RA. This might reinforce current diagnostics and improve early diagnosis and intervention in RA.

A real-time PCR-based semi-quantitative breakpoint to aid in molecular identification of urinary tract infections.

This study presents a novel approach to aid in diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A real-time PCR assay was used to screen for culture-positive urinary specimens and to identify the causative uropathogen. Semi-quantitative breakpoints were used to screen for significant bacteriuria (presence of ≥ 10(5) CFU/ml of uropathogens) or low-level bacteriuria (containing between 10(3) and 10(4) CFU/ml of uropathogens). The 16S rDNA-based assay could identify the most prevalent uropathogens using probes for Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus species, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus species and Streptococcus species. 330 urinary specimens were analysed and results were compared with conventional urine culture. Using a PCR Ct value of 25 as semi-quantitative breakpoint for significant bacteriuria resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 97% and 80%, respectively. In 78% of the samples with monomicrobial infections the assay contained probes to detect the bacteria present in the urine specimens and 99% of these uropathogens was correctly identified. Concluding, this proof-of-concept approach demonstrates that the assay can distinguish bacteriuria from no bacteriuria as well as detect the involved uropathogen within 4 hours after sampling, allowing adequate therapy decisions within the same day as well as drastically reduce consequent urine culturing.

Pre-analytical sample treatment and DNA extraction protocols for the detection of bacterial pathogens from whole blood.

Molecular diagnostics is an increasing popular approach for the direct detection and identification of pathogenic bacteria in clinical samples. Conventional culture techniques are time-consuming and therefore causing a delay in the diagnosis of the patient. Alternative techniques based on nucleic acid amplification offer a shorter turn-around-time and the ability to identify fastidious and non-cultivable organisms. However, molecular detection of bacteria in blood, by for example PCR, RT-PCR, or sequencing of the 16S rDNA genes is often complicated by the presence of PCR-inhibitory compounds. Here we describe several different methods for the extraction of bacterial DNA from whole blood samples. The methods differ regarding costs, hands-on time as well as regarding sensitivity. In combination with a model PCR the detection limits that can be reached using the different methods range from 1,000 to 50 cfu/ml.

One-day workflow scheme for bacterial pathogen detection and antimicrobial resistance testing from blood cultures.

Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality rates because of the probable manifestation of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock(1). Therefore, rapid administration of adequate antibiotic therapy is of foremost importance in the treatment of bloodstream infections. The critical element in this process is timing, heavily dependent on the results of bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Both of these parameters are routinely obtained by culture-based testing, which is time-consuming and takes on average 24-48 hours(2, 4). The aim of the study was to develop DNA-based assays for rapid identification of bloodstream infections, as well as rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The first assay is a eubacterial 16S rDNA-based real-time PCR assay complemented with species- or genus-specific probes(5). Using these probes, Gram-negative bacteria including Pseudomonas spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli as well as Gram-positive bacteria including Staphylococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Streptococcus pneumoniae could be distinguished. Using this multiprobe assay, a first identification of the causative micro-organism was given after 2 h. Secondly, we developed a semi-molecular assay for antibiotic susceptibility testing of S. aureus, Enterococcus spp. and (facultative) aerobe Gram-negative rods(6). This assay was based on a study in which PCR was used to measure the growth of bacteria(7). Bacteria harvested directly from blood cultures are incubated for 6 h with a selection of antibiotics, and following a Sybr Green-based real-time PCR assay determines inhibition of growth. The combination of these two methods could direct the choice of a suitable antibiotic therapy on the same day (Figure 1). In conclusion, molecular analysis of both identification and antibiotic susceptibility offers a faster alternative for pathogen detection and could improve the diagnosis of bloodstream infections.

Molecular probes for diagnosis of clinically relevant bacterial infections in blood cultures.

Broad-range real-time PCR and sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene region is a widely known method for the detection and identification of bacteria in clinical samples. However, because of the need for sequencing, such identification of bacteria is time-consuming. The aim of our study was to develop a more rapid 16S real-time PCR-based identification assay using species- or genus-specific probes. The Gram-negative bacteria were divided into Pseudomonas species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and other Gram-negative species. Within the Gram-positive species, probes were designed for Staphylococcus species, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus species, Streptococcus species, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. The assay also included a universal probe within the 16S rRNA gene region for the detection of all bacterial DNA. The assay was evaluated with a collection of 248 blood cultures. In this study, the universal probe and the probes targeting Pseudomonas spp., P. aeruginosa, E. coli, Streptococcus spp., S. pneumoniae, Enterococcus spp., and Staphylococcus spp. all had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. The probe specific for S. aureus showed eight discrepancies, resulting in a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 93%. These data showed high agreement between conventional testing and our novel real-time PCR assay. Furthermore, this assay significantly reduced the time needed for identification. In conclusion, using pathogen-specific probes offers a faster alternative for pathogen detection and could improve the diagnosis of bloodstream infections.

Evaluation of new preanalysis sample treatment tools and DNA isolation protocols to improve bacterial pathogen detection in whole blood.

Two novel preanalysis sample treatment tools were evaluated in combination with four DNA extraction kits for the selective isolation of bacterial DNA from whole blood. The combination of performing a preanalysis sample treatment and using a larger sample volume increased the detection limit to 50 CFU per ml.