High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in cats recently exposed to human cases.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this cross-sectional study, conducted in Québec and Bristish Columbia (Canada) between February 2021 and January 2022, was to measure the prevalence of viral RNA in oronasal and rectal swabs and serum antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) amongst cats living in households with at least one confirmed human case. Secondary objectives included a description of potential risk factors for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and an estimation of the association between the presence of viral RNA in swabs as well as SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and clinical signs. Oronasal and rectal swabs and sera were collected from 55 cats from 40 households at most 15 days after a human case confirmation, and at up to two follow-up visits. A RT-qPCR assay and an ELISA were used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in swabs and serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, respectively. Prevalence and 95% Bayesian credibility intervals (BCI) were calculated, and associations were evaluated using prevalence ratio and 95% BCI obtained from Bayesian mixed log-binomial models. RESULTS: Nine (0.16; 95% BCI = 0.08-0.28) and 38 (0.69; 95% BCI = 0.56-0.80) cats had at least one positive RT-qPCR and at least one positive serological test result, respectively. No risk factor was associated with the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies. The prevalence of clinical signs suggestive of COVID-19 in cats, mainly sneezing, was 2.12 (95% BCI = 1.03-3.98) times higher amongst cats with detectable viral RNA compared to those without. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that cats develop antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 when exposed to recent human cases, but detection of viral RNA on swabs is rare, even when sampling occurs soon after confirmation of a human case. Moreover, cats with detectable levels of virus showed clinical signs more often than cats without signs, which can be useful for the management of such cases.

Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Past studies have shown a commission bias for cancer treatment, a tendency to choose active treatment even when watchful waiting is less risky. This bias suggests motivations for action beyond mortality statistics, but recent evidence suggests that individuals differ in their emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP), the tendency to calibrate emotional reactions to probability. The current study aims to examine the role of ESP in the commission bias, specifically whether those higher in ESP are more likely to choose watchful waiting when risk probabilities align with that choice. METHODS: Participants (N = 1,055) read a scenario describing a hypothetical cancer diagnosis and chose between surgery and watchful waiting, with random assignment between versions where the mortality rate was either lower for surgery or for watchful waiting. We modeled choice using the Possibility Probability Questionnaire (PPQ), a measure of ESP, and several other individual differences in a logistic regression. RESULTS: We observed a commission bias as in past studies with most participants choosing surgery both when surgery was optimal (71%) and when watchful waiting was optimal (58%). An ESP × Condition interaction indicated that the predictive role of ESP depended on condition. Those higher in ESP were more likely to choose surgery when probabilities favored surgery, ß = 0.57, P < 0.001, but when probabilities favored watchful waiting, ESP had a near-zero relationship with choice, ß = 0.05, P < 0.99. CONCLUSIONS: The role of ESP in decision making is context specific. Higher levels of ESP predict choosing action when that action is warranted but do not predict a shift away from surgery when watchful waiting offers better chances of survival. ESP does not overcome the commission bias. HIGHLIGHTS: Past studies have identified a "commission bias," a tendency to choose active treatment over watchful waiting, even when mortality rate is lower for waiting.Evaluation of risk probabilities is related to individual differences in emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP) and has been shown to predict reactions to and decisions about health risk situations.ESP appears to be selectively factored into decision making. ESP was a robust predictor of choosing surgery when probability information supported surgery but did not predict decisions when probability information supported watchful waiting.Those who are most emotionally attuned to probabilities are just as susceptible to the commission bias as those who are less attuned.

The role of emotional sensitivity to probability in the decision to choose genetic testing.

While the availability of genetic testing is rapidly increasing, many opt out of testing. The decision to test or not is emotionally charged, and both clinical research and theoretical work in psychology show that in emotional decisions, people often struggle to interpret and utilize risk information. Clinical research on genetic testing uptake also shows that feeling overwhelmed by numeric information may be a deterrent to testing. However, recent psychological research indicates that some portion of the population has greater emotional sensitivity to probability, (i.e., the extent to which emotional reactions to risk depend on probabilities) than others. We hypothesize that participants high in emotional sensitivity to probability will be more interested in genetic testing as an opportunity to seek greater precision in risk estimates and that this relationship is moderated by the testing context itself. In an online survey of a nationally representative sample (not recruited as patients), participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario describing a suspected diagnosis with an option for genetic testing. The scenario experimentally varied the pre-test probability estimate of the diagnosis (low or high) and whether the test results would result in certainty (ruling in or ruling out the diagnosis), or reduced uncertainty (providing a more precise individual risk estimate). Results indicated that emotional sensitivity to probability was a strong predictor of intention to test, particularly when the test allowed participants to rule out a diagnosis, reducing an already low probability to zero. These results highlight the way patients' individual characteristics interact with the testing context to guide decision-making and provide important insight into the way patients integrate risk probability information into intensely emotional decisions.