Evaluating the role of financial navigation in alleviating financial distress among young adults with a history of blood cancer: A hybrid type 2 randomized effectiveness-implementation design.

BACKGROUND: Young adulthood (YA) is a complex phase of life, marked by key developmental goals, including educational and vocational attainment, housing independence, maintenance of social relationships, and financial stability. A cancer diagnosis during, or prior to, this phase of life can compromise the achievement of these milestones. Studies of adults with cancer have demonstrated that >70% report experiencing financial side-effects, which are associated with increased mortality, diminished health-related quality of life, and forgone medical care. The goal of this project is to evaluate financial distress of YA-aged survivors of blood cancers, and the impact of financial navigation on alleviating this distress. METHODS: This three-arm, multi-site, hybrid type 2 randomized effectiveness-implementation design (EID) study will be conducted through remote consent, remote data capture and telephone-based/virtual financial navigation. Participants will be aged 18-39, and more than three years from their blood cancer diagnosis. In this six-month intervention, the study will compare the primary outcome of financial distress in three arms: (1) usual care (2) participant-initiated, ad hoc navigation, and (3) study-directed proactive navigation. The study will be evaluated via the five-component Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) outcome strategy with a mixed-methods approach through quantitative assessment of participant-reported financial distress using the Personal Financial Wellness Scale™, as the primary outcome measure, and qualitative assessment through interviews. CONCLUSION: The study will address many unanswered questions regarding financial navigation within the YA survivor population and will inform the most successful strategies to mitigate financial distress in this vulnerable population.

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Serial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented. METHODS: In a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), Quidel SARS Sofia antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), and live virus culture. RESULTS: Both RT-qPCR and Quidel SARS Sofia antigen FIA peaked in sensitivity during the period in which live virus was detected in nasal swabs, but sensitivity of RT-qPCR tests rose more rapidly prior to this period. We also found that serial testing multiple times per week increases the sensitivity of antigen tests. CONCLUSIONS: RT-qPCR tests are more effective than antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (given timely results reporting). All tests showed >98% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals if used at least every 3 days. Daily screening using antigen tests can achieve approximately 90% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals while they are viral culture positive.

Longitudinal assessment of diagnostic test performance over the course of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?: Diagnostic tests and sample types for SARS-CoV-2 vary in sensitivity across the infection period. WHAT IS ADDED BY THIS REPORT?: We show that both RTqPCR (from nasal swab and saliva) and the Quidel SARS Sofia FIA rapid antigen tests peak in sensitivity during the period in which live virus can be detected in nasal swabs, but that the sensitivity of RTqPCR tests rises more rapidly in the pre-infectious period. We also use empirical data to estimate the sensitivities of RTqPCR and antigen tests as a function of testing frequency. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE?: RTqPCR tests will be more effective than rapid antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (provided results reporting is timely). All modalities, including rapid antigen tests, showed >94% sensitivity to detect infection if used at least twice per week. Regular surveillance/screening using rapid antigen tests 2-3 times per week can be an effective strategy to achieve high sensitivity (>95%) for identifying infected individuals.