COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California.

BACKGROUND: Measuring the seroprevalence of antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is central to understanding infection risk and fatality rates. We studied Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-antibody seroprevalence in a community sample drawn from Santa Clara County. METHODS: On 3 and 4 April 2020, we tested 3328 county residents for immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a rapid lateral-flow assay (Premier Biotech). Participants were recruited using advertisements that were targeted to reach county residents that matched the county population by gender, race/ethnicity and zip code of residence. We estimate weights to match our sample to the county by zip, age, sex and race/ethnicity. We report the weighted and unweighted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We adjust for test-performance characteristics by combining data from 18 independent test-kit assessments: 14 for specificity and 4 for sensitivity. RESULTS: The raw prevalence of antibodies in our sample was 1.5% [exact binomial 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.0%]. Test-performance specificity in our data was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2-99.7%) and sensitivity was 82.8% (95% CI 76.0-88.4%). The unweighted prevalence adjusted for test-performance characteristics was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7-1.8%). After weighting for population demographics, the prevalence was 2.8% (95% CI 1.3-4.2%), using bootstrap to estimate confidence bounds. These prevalence point estimates imply that 53 000 [95% CI 26 000 to 82 000 using weighted prevalence; 23 000 (95% CI 14 000-35 000) using unweighted prevalence] people were infected in Santa Clara County by late March-many more than the ∼1200 confirmed cases at the time. CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that COVID-19 was likely more widespread than indicated by the number of cases in late March, 2020. At the time, low-burden contexts such as Santa Clara County were far from herd-immunity thresholds.

Concordance between fine-needle aspiration and core biopsies for osseous lesions by lesion imaging appearance and CT attenuation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the concordance between fine-needle aspiration and core biopsies for osseous lesions by lesion imaging appearance and CT attenuation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 215 FNAs of osseous lesions performed in conjunction with core biopsy at our institution over a 6-year period (2011-2016). FNAs were interpreted independently of core biopsies. We assessed if FNA in conjunction with core biopsy increased diagnostic accuracy compared to core biopsy alone. We also calculated the concordance between FNA and core biopsy by lesion appearance, lesion CT attenuation, lesion histology, lesion location and FNA needle gauge size. RESULTS: Core biopsy alone provided the diagnosis in 207/215 cases (96.3%), however, the FNA provided the diagnosis in the remaining 8/215 cases (3.7%) where the core biopsy was non-diagnostic. There were 154 (71.6%) lytic lesions, 21 (9.8%) blastic lesions, 25 (11.6%) mixed lytic and blastic lesions and 15 (7.0%) lesions that were neither lytic nor blastic. The concordance between FNA and core biopsy for lytic osseous lesions (136/154 cases, 88.3%) was statistically significantly higher than that for blastic osseous lesions (13/21 cases, 61.9%) [P = 4.2 × 10-3; 95% CI (0.02, 0.50)]. The concordance between FNA and core biopsy was higher for low-attenuation- (110/126) than high-attenuation (58/77) lesions (P = 0.028). The concordance between FNA and core biopsy was also higher for metastases (102/119 cases, 85.7%) than non-metastases (78/96, 81.3%) [P = 0.487; 95% CI (- 0.15, 0.065)]. There was no difference in the rate of concordance between FNA and core biopsy by lesion location or FNA needle gauge size (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: FNA with core biopsy increases diagnostic rate compared to core biopsy alone or FNA alone. The concordance between FNA and core biopsy is higher for lytic lesions than for blastic lesions; and higher for low-attenuation lesions than for high-attenuation lesions.