Comparison of COVID-19 home-testers vs. laboratory-testers in New York State (excluding New York City), November 2021 to April 2022.

Background: Though the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) home testing kits is increasing, individuals who use home tests are not accounted for in publicly reported COVID-19 metrics. As the pandemic and the methods for tracking cases evolve, it is critical to understand who the individuals excluded are, due to their use of home testing kits, relative to those included in the reported metrics. Methods: Five New York State databases were linked to investigate trends in home-tested COVID-19 cases vs. laboratory-confirmed cases from November 2021 to April 2022. Frequency distributions, multivariate logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare the characteristics of the home-tested and laboratory-tested people. Results: Of the 591,227 confirmed COVID-19 cases interviewed, 71,531 (12%) of them underwent home tests, 515,001 (87%) underwent laboratory tests, and 5,695 (1%) underwent both home tests and laboratory tests during this period. Home-tested COVID-19 cases increased from only 1% in November 2021 to 22% in April 2022. Children aged 5-11 years with an aOR of 3.74 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.96) and adolescents aged 12-17 years with an aOR of 3.24 (95% CI: 3.07, 3.43) were more likely to undergo only home tests compared to adults aged 65 years and above. On the one hand, those who were "boosted" (aOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.82, 1.93), those in K-12 school settings (aOR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.27, 2.40), or those who were possibly infected by a household member (aOR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22) were more likely to report home testing instead of laboratory testing. On the other hand, individuals who were hospitalized (aOR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.06), who had underlying conditions (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.87), who were pregnant (aOR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.86), and who were Hispanic (aOR 0.50: 95% CI: 0.48, 0.53), Asian (aOR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.34), or Black (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.42, 047) were less likely to choose home testing over laboratory testing. Conclusion: The percentage of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 who used only home testing kits continues to rise. People who used only home testing were less likely to be hospitalized and were those with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disease given factors such as age, vaccination status, and underlying conditions. Thus, the official COVID-19 metrics primarily reflected individuals with severe illness or the potential for severe illness. There may be racial and ethnic differences in the use of home testing vs. laboratory testing.

Perceived COVID-19 risk and testing experiences in the San Ysidro U.S./Mexico border region.

Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 incidence are pronounced in underserved U.S./Mexico border communities. Working and living environments in these communities can lead to increased risk of COVID-19 infection and transmission, and this increased risk is exacerbated by lack of access to testing. As part of designing a community and culturally tailored COVID-19 testing program, we surveyed community members in the San Ysidro border region. The purpose of our study was to characterize knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of prenatal patients, prenatal caregivers, and pediatric caregivers at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FHQC) in the San Ysidro region regarding perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and access to testing. A cross-sectional survey was used to collect information on experiences accessing COVID-19 testing and perceived risk of COVID-19 infection within San Ysidro between December 29, 2020 and April 2, 2021. A total of 179 surveys were analyzed. Most participants identified as female (85%) and as Mexican/Mexican American (75%). Over half (56%) were between the age of 25 and 34 years old. Perceived Risk: 37% reported moderate to high risk of COVID-19 infection, whereas 50% reported their risk low to none. Testing Experience: Approximately 68% reported previously being tested for COVID-19. Among those tested, 97% reported having very easy or easy access to testing. Reasons for not testing included limited appointment availability, cost, not feeling sick, and concern about risk of infection while at a testing facility. This study is an important first step to understand the COVID-19 risk perceptions and testing access among patients and community members living near the U.S./Mexico border in San Ysidro, California.

COVID-19 testing strategies that fail to incorporate culturally competent methods to reach traditionally underserved communities can lead to persistent transmission and increased infection rates. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed 179 people living in a community with high burden of COVID-19 infection about their perception of infection risk and their experiences accessing testing. Capturing and understanding these community perceptions on COVID-19 risk are vital when developing a testing program that is accessible and appropriate for the target population. In our study, we found half of survey respondents thought their risk of COVID-19 infection as low to none and over half of respondents stated they had already been tested for COVID-19. These findings provide insight to the beliefs of individuals who live and seek health care in communities with high rates of COVID-19 infection and will help guide the design and implementation of culturally tailored testing strategies.

A Rapid Assessment of the Impact of COVID-19 on Asian Americans: Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The diverse Asian American population has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but due to limited data and other factors, disparities experienced by this population are hidden. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the Asian American community's experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, California, and to better inform a Federally Qualified Health Center's (FQHC) health care services and response to challenges faced by the community. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey between May 20 and June 23, 2020, using a multipronged recruitment approach, including word-of-mouth, FQHC patient appointments, and social media posts. The survey was self-administered online or administered over the phone by FQHC staff in English, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Vietnamese. Survey question topics included COVID-19 testing and preventative behaviors, economic impacts of COVID-19, experience with perceived mistreatment due to their race/ethnicity, and mental health challenges. RESULTS: Among 1297 Asian American respondents, only 3.1% (39/1273) had previously been tested for COVID-19, and 46.6% (392/841) stated that they could not find a place to get tested. In addition, about two-thirds of respondents (477/707) reported feeling stressed, and 22.6% (160/707) reported feeling depressed. Furthermore, 5.6% (72/1275) of respondents reported being treated unfairly because of their race/ethnicity. Among respondents who experienced economic impacts from COVID-19, 32.2% (246/763) had lost their regular jobs and 22.5% (172/763) had reduced hours or reduced income. Additionally, 70.1% (890/1269) of respondents shared that they avoid leaving their home to go to public places (eg, grocery stores, church, and school). CONCLUSIONS: We found that Asian Americans had lower levels of COVID-19 testing and limited access to testing, a high prevalence of mental health issues and economic impacts, and a high prevalence of risk-avoidant behaviors (eg, not leaving the house) in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings provide preliminary insights into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Asian American communities served by an FQHC and underscore the longstanding need for culturally and linguistically appropriate approaches to providing mental health, outreach, and education services. These findings led to the establishment of the first Asian multilingual and multicultural COVID-19 testing sites in the local area where the study was conducted, and laid the groundwork for subsequent COVID-19 programs, specifically contact tracing and vaccination programs.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 testing and contact tracing in a US city.

Although testing, contact tracing, and case isolation programs can mitigate COVID-19 transmission and allow the relaxation of social distancing measures, few countries worldwide have succeeded in scaling such efforts to levels that suppress spread. The efficacy of test-trace-isolate likely depends on the speed and extent of follow-up and the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Here, we use a granular model of COVID-19 transmission to estimate the public health impacts of test-trace-isolate programs across a range of programmatic and epidemiological scenarios, based on testing and contact tracing data collected on a university campus and surrounding community in Austin, TX, between October 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021. The median time between specimen collection from a symptomatic case and quarantine of a traced contact was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 2 to 3) on campus and 5 days (IQR: 3 to 8) in the community. Assuming a reproduction number of 1.2, we found that detection of 40% of all symptomatic cases followed by isolation is expected to avert 39% (IQR: 30% to 45%) of COVID-19 cases. Contact tracing is expected to increase the cases averted to 53% (IQR: 42% to 58%) or 40% (32% to 47%), assuming the 2- and 5-day delays estimated on campus and in the community, respectively. In a tracing-accelerated scenario, in which 75% of contacts are notified the day after specimen collection, cases averted increase to 68% (IQR: 55% to 72%). An accelerated contact tracing program leveraging rapid testing and electronic reporting of test results can significantly curtail local COVID-19 transmission.

The importance of disease prevalence in clinical decision making: a real practice study on COVID-19 antigen test in Curacao.

The performance of a test can be suboptimal, but in appropriate setting such a test is still useful for clinical decision making. We investigated the role of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Test (Ag-RDT) for clinical decision making in an Emergency Department (ED) in Curacao during peak of COVID-19 pandemic. Ag-RDT was performed in the naso- and oropharynx-swabs from patients with respiratory insufficiency presented to the ED. Ag-RDT was performed in 153 patients, of which 64 (41.8%) showed positive results. Comparing Ag-RDT results with molecular tests, its sensitivity was 68.8% (95% CI 57.4 to 78.7), and specificity of 94.6% (95% CI 84.9 to 98.9). The positive and negative predictive value were 95.1% (95% CI 86.5 to 98.3) and 66.3 (95% CI 58.6 to 73.3), respectively. All patients with Ag-RDT positive test were admitted to the cohorted COVD-19 department of the hospital. By using Ag-RDT, 35.9% of rapid PCR tests (that are more costly and laborious to perform) could be avoided at cost of 5.8% patients with false positive result. In conclusion, in real practice, disease prevalence is as important as test's performance for clinical decision making. The conclusion may also be applicable for other diagnostic tests than COVID-19 diagnostic.

SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospitalised pregnant women and impact of different viral strains on COVID-19 severity in Italy: a national prospective population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this article was to describe SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women during the wild-type and Alpha-variant periods in Italy. The secondary aim was to compare the impact of the virus variants on the severity of maternal and perinatal outcomes. DESIGN: National population-based prospective cohort study. SETTING: A total of 315 Italian maternity hospitals. SAMPLE: A cohort of 3306 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days of hospital admission. METHODS: Cases were prospectively reported by trained clinicians for each participating maternity unit. Data were described by univariate and multivariate analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 pneumonia, ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mode of delivery, preterm birth, stillbirth, and maternal and neonatal mortality. RESULTS: We found that 64.3% of the cohort was asymptomatic, 12.8% developed COVID-19 pneumonia and 3.3% required ventilatory support and/or ICU admission. Maternal age of 30-34 years (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.87) and ≥35 years (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.23-2.13), citizenship of countries with high migration pressure (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.36-2.25), previous comorbidities (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.13-1.98) and obesity (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.29-2.27) were all associated with a higher occurrence of pneumonia. The preterm birth rate was 11.1%. In comparison with the pre-pandemic period, stillbirths and maternal and neonatal deaths remained stable. The need for ventilatory support and/or ICU admission among women with pneumonia increased during the Alpha-variant period compared with the wild-type period (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.99-5.28). CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with a low risk of severe COVID-19 disease among pregnant women and with rare adverse perinatal outcomes. During the Alpha-variant period there was a significant increase of severe COVID-19 illness. Further research is needed to describe the impact of different SARS-CoV-2 viral strains on maternal and perinatal outcomes.

SARS-CoV-2 and pregnancy outcomes under universal and non-universal testing in Sweden: register-based nationwide cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess associations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and pregnancy outcomes considering testing policy and test-positivity-to-delivery interval. DESIGN: Nationwide cohort study. SETTING: Sweden. POPULATION: From the Pregnancy-Register we identified 88 593 singleton births, 11 March 2020-31 January 2021, linked to data on SARS-CoV-2-positivity from the Public Health Agency, and information on neonatal care admission from the Neonatal Quality Register. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated stratified by testing-policy and test-positivity-to-delivery interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five-minute Apgar score, neonatal care admission, stillbirth and preterm birth. RESULTS: During pregnancy, SARS-CoV-2 test-positivity was 5.4% (794/14 665) under universal testing and 1.9% (1402/73 928) under non-universal testing. There were generally lower risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 under universal than non-universal testing. In women testing positive >10 days from delivery, generally no significant differences in risk were observed under either testing policy. Neonatal care admission was more common (15.3% versus 8.0%; aOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.62-3.11) in women testing positive ≤10 days before delivery under universal testing. There was no significant association with 5-minute Apgar score below 7 (1.0% versus 1.7%; aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.24-1.72) or stillbirth (0.3% versus 0.4%; aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.10-5.20). Compared with term births (2.1%), test-positivity was higher in medically indicated preterm birth (5.7%; aOR 2.70, 95% CI 1.60-4.58) but not significantly increased in spontaneous preterm birth (2.3%; aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.62-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: Testing policy and timing of test-positivity impact associations between SARS-CoV-2-positivity and pregnancy outcomes. Under non-universal testing, women with complications near delivery are more likely to be tested than women without complications, thereby inflating any association with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with findings under universal testing. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Testing policy and time from SARS-CoV-2 infection to delivery influence the association with pregnancy outcomes.

Pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy during COVID-19 pandemic: the care must go on.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, endoscopic societies initially recommended reduction of endoscopic procedures. In particular non-urgent endoscopies should be postponed. However, this might lead to unnecessary delay in diagnosing gastrointestinal conditions. METHODS: Retrospectively we analysed the gastrointestinal endoscopies performed at the Central Endoscopy Unit of Saarland University Medical Center during seven weeks from 23 March to 10 May 2020 and present our real-world single-centre experience with an individualized rtPCR-based pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy. We also present our experience with this strategy in 2021. RESULTS: Altogether 359 gastrointestinal endoscopies were performed in the initial period. The testing strategy enabled us to conservatively handle endoscopy programme reduction (44% reduction as compared 2019) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of COVID-19 rtPCR from nasopharyngeal swabs were available in 89% of patients prior to endoscopies. Apart from six patients with known COVID-19, all other tested patients were negative. The frequencies of endoscopic therapies and clinically significant findings did not differ between patients with or without SARS-CoV-2 tests. In 2021 we were able to unrestrictedly perform all requested endoscopic procedures (> 5000 procedures) by applying the rtPCR-based pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy, regardless of next waves of COVID-19. Only two out-patients (1893 out-patient procedures) were tested positive in the year 2021. CONCLUSION: A structured pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy is feasible in the clinical routine of an endoscopy unit. rtPCR-based pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing safely allowed unrestricted continuation of endoscopic procedures even in the presence of high incidence rates of COVID-19. Given the low frequency of positive tests, the absolute effect of pre-endoscopy testing on viral transmission may be low when FFP-2 masks are regularly used.

Human Centered Decision-Making for COVID-19 Testing Center Location Selection: Tamil Nadu-A Case Study.

This paper proposes a blend of three techniques to select COVID-19 testing centers. The objective of the paper is to identify a suitable location to establish new COVID-19 testing centers. Establishment of the testing center in the needy locations will be beneficial to both public and government officials. Selection of the wrong location may lead to lose both health and wealth. In this paper, location selection is modelled as a decision-making problem. The paper uses fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique to generate the criteria weights, monkey search algorithm to optimize the weights, and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to rank the different locations. To illustrate the applicability of the proposed technique, a state named Tamil Nadu, located in India, is taken for a case study. The proposed structured algorithmic steps were applied for the input data obtained from the government of India website, and the results were analyzed and validated using the government of India website. The ranks assigned by the proposed technique to different locations are in aligning with the number of patients and death rate.

COVID-19 Testing Among US Children, Parental Preferences for Testing Venues, and Acceptability of School-Based Testing.

OBJECTIVES: Testing remains critical for identifying pediatric cases of COVID-19 and as a public health intervention to contain infections. We surveyed US parents to measure the proportion of children tested for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, preferred testing venues for children, and acceptability of school-based COVID-19 testing. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 2074 US parents of children aged ≤12 years in March 2021. We applied survey weights to generate national estimates, and we used Rao-Scott adjusted Pearson χ2 tests to compare incidence by selected sociodemographic characteristics. We used Poisson regression models with robust SEs to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of pediatric testing. RESULTS: Among US parents, 35.9% reported their youngest child had ever been tested for COVID-19. Parents who were female versus male (aRR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79), Asian versus non-Hispanic White (aRR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87), and from the Midwest versus the Northeast (aRR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91) were less likely to report testing of a child. Children who had health insurance versus no health insurance (aRR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.81), were attending in-person school/daycare versus not attending (aRR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.43-1.95), and were from households with annual household income ≥$100 000 versus income <$50 000-$99 999 (aRR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40) were more likely to have tested for COVID-19. Half of parents (52.7%) reported the pediatrician's office as the most preferred testing venue, and 50.6% said they would allow their youngest child to be tested for COVID-19 at school/daycare if required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to ensure access to COVID-19 testing for US children, including those without health insurance.

Racial/Ethnic Segregation and Access to COVID-19 Testing: Spatial Distribution of COVID-19 Testing Sites in the Four Largest Highly Segregated Cities in the United States.

Objectives. To quantify the relationship between the segregation of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities and COVID-19 testing sites in populous US cities. Methods. We mapped testing sites as of June 2020 in New York City; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Houston, Texas; we applied Bayesian methods to estimate the association between testing site location and the proportion of the population that is Black, Latinx, or Indigenous per block group, the smallest unit for which the US Census collects sociodemographic data. Results. In New York City, Chicago, and Houston, the expected number of testing sites decreased by 1.29%, 3.05%, and 1.06%, respectively, for each percentage point increase in the Black population. In Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles, testing sites decreased by 5.64%, 1.95%, and 1.69%, respectively, for each percentage point increase in the Latinx population. Conclusions. In the largest highly segregated US cities, neighborhoods with more Black and Latinx residents had fewer COVID-19 testing sites, likely limiting these communities' participation in the early response to COVID-19. Public Health Implications. In light of conversations on the ethics of racial vaccine prioritization, authorities should consider structural barriers to COVID-19 control efforts. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(3):518-526. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306558).

The effect of social deprivation on the dynamic of SARS-CoV-2 infection in France: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on health inequalities related to the dynamic of SARS-CoV-2 infection in France are scarce. The aim of this study was to analyse the association between an area-based deprivation indicator and SARS-CoV-2 incidence, positivity, and testing rates between May 2020 and April 2021. METHODS: We analysed data reported to the Système d'Information de Dépistage Populationnel surveillance system between May 14, 2020 and April 29, 2021, which records the results of all SARS-CoV-2 tests in France. Residential addresses of tested individuals were geocoded to retrieve the associated aggregated units for the statistical information (IRIS) scale, corresponding to an area comprising 2000 inhabitants relatively homogenous in terms of socioeconomic characteristics. A social deprivation score was assigned to each area using the European Deprivation Index (EDI). We fitted negative binomial generalised additive models to model the age-standardised and sex-standardised ratios for SARS-CoV-2 incidence, positivity rates, and testing rates, and to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs of their association with EDI quintiles, using the first quintile (least deprived) as the reference category, adjusted for week, population density, and region. FINDINGS: Analyses were based on 70 990 478 SARS-CoV-2 tests, of which 5 000 972 were positive. SARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in the most deprived areas than the least deprived areas (IRR 1·148 [95% CI 1·138-1·158]) and positivity rates were also higher (IRR 1·283 [1·273-1·294]), whereas testing rates were lower in the most deprived areas than the least deprived areas (IRR 0·905 [0·904-0·907]). SARS-CoV-2 incidence and positivity rates remained higher in the most deprived areas than the least deprived areas during the second and third national lockdowns, and variation in testing rate was observed according to population density. INTERPRETATION: Our results highlight a positive social gradient between deprivation and the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, with the highest risk among individuals living in the most deprived areas and a negative social gradient for testing rate. These findings might reflect structural barriers to health-care access in France and lower capacity of deprived populations to benefit from protective measures. FUNDING: None.