Climate Change and the Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases in the United States.

The earth is rapidly warming, driven by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other gases that result primarily from fossil fuel combustion. In addition to causing arctic ice melting and extreme weather events, climatologic factors are linked strongly to the transmission of many infectious diseases. Changes in the prevalence of infectious diseases not only reflect the impacts of temperature, humidity, and other weather-related phenomena on pathogens, vectors, and animal hosts but are also part of a complex of social and environmental factors that will be affected by climate change, including land use, migration, and vector control. Vector- and waterborne diseases and coccidioidomycosis are all likely to be affected by a warming planet; there is also potential for climate-driven impacts on emerging infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance. Additional resources for surveillance and public health activities are urgently needed, as well as systematic education of clinicians on the health impacts of climate change.

Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Transmission in a Skilled Nursing Facility.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can spread rapidly within skilled nursing facilities. After identification of a case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility, we assessed transmission and evaluated the adequacy of symptom-based screening to identify infections in residents. METHODS: We conducted two serial point-prevalence surveys, 1 week apart, in which assenting residents of the facility underwent nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2, including real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), viral culture, and sequencing. Symptoms that had been present during the preceding 14 days were recorded. Asymptomatic residents who tested positive were reassessed 7 days later. Residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath), symptomatic with only atypical symptoms, presymptomatic, or asymptomatic. RESULTS: Twenty-three days after the first positive test result in a resident at this skilled nursing facility, 57 of 89 residents (64%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 76 residents who participated in point-prevalence surveys, 48 (63%) tested positive. Of these 48 residents, 27 (56%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing; 24 subsequently developed symptoms (median time to onset, 4 days). Samples from these 24 presymptomatic residents had a median rRT-PCR cycle threshold value of 23.1, and viable virus was recovered from 17 residents. As of April 3, of the 57 residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 11 had been hospitalized (3 in the intensive care unit) and 15 had died (mortality, 26%). Of the 34 residents whose specimens were sequenced, 27 (79%) had sequences that fit into two clusters with a difference of one nucleotide. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility.

Epidemiology of Covid-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility in King County, Washington.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities are high-risk settings for severe outcomes from outbreaks of Covid-19, owing to both the advanced age and frequent chronic underlying health conditions of the residents and the movement of health care personnel among facilities in a region. METHODS: After identification on February 28, 2020, of a confirmed case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility in King County, Washington, Public Health-Seattle and King County, aided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, launched a case investigation, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, isolation of confirmed and suspected cases, and on-site enhancement of infection prevention and control. RESULTS: As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of rapidly escalating Covid-19 outbreaks, proactive steps by long-term care facilities to identify and exclude potentially infected staff and visitors, actively monitor for potentially infected patients, and implement appropriate infection prevention and control measures are needed to prevent the introduction of Covid-19.

Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among staff and residents at homeless shelters in King County, Washington: an active surveillance study.

Homeless shelter residents and staff may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, SARS-CoV-2 infection estimates in this population have been reliant on cross-sectional or outbreak investigation data. We conducted routine surveillance and outbreak testing in 23 homeless shelters in King County, Washington, to estimate the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors during 1 January 2020-31 May 2021. Symptom surveys and nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 testing by RT-PCR for residents aged ≥3 months and staff. We collected 12,915 specimens from 2,930 unique participants. We identified 4.74 (95% CI 4.00-5.58) SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 individuals (residents: 4.96, 95% CI 4.12-5.91; staff: 3.86, 95% CI 2.43-5.79). Most infections were asymptomatic at the time of detection (74%) and detected during routine surveillance (73%). Outbreak testing yielded higher test positivity than routine surveillance (2.7% versus 0.9%). Among those infected, residents were less likely to report symptoms than staff. Participants who were vaccinated against seasonal influenza and were current smokers had lower odds of having an infection detected. Active surveillance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing of all persons is essential in ascertaining the true burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections among residents and staff of congregate settings.

The Clinical and Genomic Epidemiology of Rhinovirus in Homeless Shelters-King County, Washington.

BACKGROUND: Rhinovirus (RV) is a common cause of respiratory illness in all people, including those experiencing homelessness. RV epidemiology in homeless shelters is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cross-sectional homeless shelter study in King County, Washington, October 2019-May 2021. Shelter residents or guardians aged ≥3 months reporting acute respiratory illness completed questionnaires and submitted nasal swabs. After 1 April 2020, enrollment expanded to residents and staff regardless of symptoms. Samples were tested by multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. A subset of RV-positive samples was sequenced. RESULTS: There were 1066 RV-positive samples with RV present every month of the study period. RV was the most common virus before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (43% and 77% of virus-positive samples, respectively). Participants from family shelters had the highest prevalence of RV. Among 131 sequenced samples, 33 RV serotypes were identified with each serotype detected for ≤4 months. CONCLUSIONS: RV infections persisted through community mitigation measures and were most prevalent in shelters housing families. Sequencing showed a diversity of circulating RV serotypes, each detected over short periods of time. Community-based surveillance in congregate settings is important to characterize respiratory viral infections during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04141917.

Human Parainfluenza Virus in Homeless Shelters before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Washington, USA.

To determine the epidemiology of human parainfluenza virus in homeless shelters during the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed data and sequences from respiratory specimens collected in 23 shelters in Washington, USA, during 2019-2021. Two clusters in children were genetically similar by shelter of origin. Shelter-specific interventions are needed to reduce these infections.

A Multifaceted Evaluation of a COVID-19 Contact Tracing Program in King County, Washington.

CONTEXT: Despite the massive scale of COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing (CI/CT) programs operating worldwide, the evidence supporting the intervention's public health impact is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Public Health-Seattle & King County (PHSKC) CI/CT program, including its reach, timeliness, effect on isolation and quarantine (I&Q) adherence, and potential to mitigate pandemic-related hardships. DESIGN: This program evaluation used descriptive statistics to analyze surveillance records, case and contact interviews, referral records, and survey data provided by a sample of cases who had recently ended isolation. SETTING: The PHSKC is one of the largest governmental local health departments in the United States. It serves more than 2.2 million people who reside in Seattle and 38 other municipalities. PARTICIPANTS: King County residents who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between July 2020 and June 2021. INTERVENTION: The PHSKC integrated COVID-19 CI/CT with prevention education and service provision. RESULTS: The PHSKC CI/CT team interviewed 42 900 cases (82% of cases eligible for CI/CT), a mean of 6.1 days after symptom onset and 3.4 days after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Cases disclosed the names and addresses of 10 817 unique worksites (mean = 0.8/interview) and 11 432 other recently visited locations (mean = 0.5/interview) and provided contact information for 62 987 household members (mean = 2.7/interview) and 14 398 nonhousehold contacts (mean = 0.3/interview). The CI/CT team helped arrange COVID-19 testing for 5650 contacts, facilitated grocery delivery for 7253 households, and referred 9127 households for financial assistance. End of I&Q Survey participants (n = 304, 54% of sampled) reported self-notifying an average of 4 nonhousehold contacts and 69% agreed that the information and referrals provided by the CI/CT team helped them stay in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: In the 12-month evaluation period, CI/CT reached 42 611 households and identified thousands of exposure venues. The timing of CI/CT relative to infectiousness and difficulty eliciting nonhousehold contacts may have attenuated the intervention's effect. Through promotion of I&Q guidance and services, CI/CT can help mitigate pandemic-related hardships.

A Novel Approach for a Novel Pathogen: Using a Home Assessment Team to Evaluate Patients for COVID-19.

Thousands of people in the United States have required testing for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation for a special pathogen is resource intensive. We report an innovative approach to home assessment that, in collaboration with public health, enables safe evaluation and specimen collection outside the healthcare setting, avoiding unnecessary exposures and resource utilization.

Effects of Air Pollution and Other Environmental Exposures on Estimates of Severe Influenza Illness, Washington, USA.

Ecologic models of influenza burden may be confounded by other exposures that share winter seasonality. We evaluated the effects of air pollution and other environmental exposures in ecologic models estimating influenza-associated hospitalizations. We linked hospitalization data, viral surveillance, and environmental data, including temperature, relative humidity, dew point, and fine particulate matter for 3 counties in Washington, USA, for 2001-2012. We used negative binomial regression models to estimate the incidence of influenza-associated respiratory and circulatory (RC) hospitalizations and to assess the effect of adjusting for environmental exposures on RC hospitalization estimates. The modeled overall incidence rate of influenza-associated RC hospitalizations was 31/100,000 person-years. The environmental parameters were statistically associated with RC hospitalizations but did not appreciably affect the event rate estimates. Modeled influenza-associated RC hospitalization rates were similar to published estimates, and inclusion of environmental covariates in the model did not have a clinically important effect on severe influenza estimates.

Investigation and Serologic Follow-Up of Contacts of an Early Confirmed Case-Patient with COVID-19, Washington, USA.

We describe the contact investigation for an early confirmed case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in the United States. Contacts of the case-patient were identified, actively monitored for symptoms, interviewed for a detailed exposure history, and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection by real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) and ELISA. Fifty contacts were identified and 38 (76%) were interviewed, of whom 11 (29%) reported unprotected face-to-face interaction with the case-patient. Thirty-seven (74%) had respiratory specimens tested by rRT-PCR, and all tested negative. Twenty-three (46%) had ELISA performed on serum samples collected ≈6 weeks after exposure, and none had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Among contacts who were tested, no secondary transmission was identified in this investigation, despite unprotected close interactions with the infectious case-patient.

COVID-19 Outbreak Among Three Affiliated Homeless Service Sites - King County, Washington, 2020.

On March 30, 2020, Public Health - Seattle and King County (PHSKC) was notified of a confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a resident of a homeless shelter and day center (shelter A). Residents from two other homeless shelters (B and C) used shelter A's day center services. Testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was offered to available residents and staff members at the three shelters during March 30-April 1, 2020. Among the 181 persons tested, 19 (10.5%) had positive test results (15 residents and four staff members). On April 1, PHSKC and CDC collaborated to conduct site assessments and symptom screening, isolate ill residents and staff members, reinforce infection prevention and control practices, provide face masks, and advise on sheltering-in-place. Repeat testing was offered April 7-8 to all residents and staff members who were not tested initially or who had negative test results. Among the 118 persons tested in the second round of testing, 18 (15.3%) had positive test results (16 residents and two staff members). In addition to the 31 residents and six staff members identified through testing at the shelters, two additional cases in residents were identified during separate symptom screening events, and four were identified after two residents and two staff members independently sought health care. In total, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 35 of 195 (18%) residents and eight of 38 (21%) staff members who received testing at the shelter or were evaluated elsewhere. COVID-19 can spread quickly in homeless shelters; rapid interventions including testing and isolation to identify cases and minimize transmission are necessary. CDC recommends that homeless service providers implement appropriate infection control practices, apply physical distancing measures including ensuring resident's heads are at least 6 feet (2 meters) apart while sleeping, and promote use of cloth face coverings among all residents (1).

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Among Residents and Staff Members of an Independent and Assisted Living Community for Older Adults - Seattle, Washington, 2020.

In the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, where the first case of novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in the United States was reported (1), a community-level outbreak is ongoing with evidence of rapid spread and high morbidity and mortality among older adults in long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (2,3). However, COVID-19 morbidity among residents of senior independent and assisted living communities, in which residents do not live as closely together as do residents in SNFs and do not require skilled nursing services, has not been described. During March 5-9, 2020, two residents of a senior independent and assisted living community in Seattle (facility 1) were hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection; on March 6, social distancing and other preventive measures were implemented in the community. UW Medicine (the health system linked to the University of Washington), Public Health - Seattle & King County, and CDC conducted an investigation at the facility. On March 10, all residents and staff members at facility 1 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms; all residents were tested again 7 days later. Among 142 residents and staff members tested during the initial phase, three of 80 residents (3.8%) and two of 62 staff members (3.2%) had positive test results. The three residents had no symptoms at the time of testing, although one reported an earlier cough that had resolved. A fourth resident, who had negative test results in the initial phase, had positive test results 7 days later. This resident was asymptomatic on both days. Possible explanations for so few cases of COVID-19 in this residential community compared with those in several Seattle SNFs with high morbidity and mortality include more social distancing among residents and less contact with health care providers. In addition, early implementation of stringent isolation and protective measures after identification of two COVID-19 cases might have been effective in minimizing spread of the virus in this type of setting. When investigating a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in senior independent and assisted living communities, symptom screening is unlikely to be sufficient to identify all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Adherence to CDC guidance to prevent COVID-19 transmission in senior independent and assisted living communities (4) could be instrumental in preventing a facility outbreak.

COVID-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility - King County, Washington, February 27-March 9, 2020.

On February 28, 2020, a case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was identified in a woman resident of a long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington.* Epidemiologic investigation of facility A identified 129 cases of COVID-19 associated with facility A, including 81 of the residents, 34 staff members, and 14 visitors; 23 persons died. Limitations in effective infection control and prevention and staff members working in multiple facilities contributed to intra- and interfacility spread. COVID-19 can spread rapidly in long-term residential care facilities, and persons with chronic underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for COVID-19-associated severe disease and death. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to protect the health of residents and preserve the health care workforce by identifying and excluding potentially infected staff members and visitors, ensuring early recognition of potentially infected patients, and implementing appropriate infection control measures.

Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility - King County, Washington, March 2020.

Older adults are susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes as a consequence of their age and, in some cases, underlying health conditions (1). A COVID-19 outbreak in a long-term care skilled nursing facility (SNF) in King County, Washington that was first identified on February 28, 2020, highlighted the potential for rapid spread among residents of these types of facilities (2). On March 1, a health care provider at a second long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington, had a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, after working while symptomatic on February 26 and 28. By March 6, seven residents of this second facility were symptomatic and had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. On March 13, CDC performed symptom assessments and SARS-CoV-2 testing for 76 (93%) of the 82 facility A residents to evaluate the utility of symptom screening for identification of COVID-19 in SNF residents. Residents were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic at the time of testing, based on the absence or presence of fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms on the day of testing or during the preceding 14 days. Among 23 (30%) residents with positive test results, 10 (43%) had symptoms on the date of testing, and 13 (57%) were asymptomatic. Seven days after testing, 10 of these 13 previously asymptomatic residents had developed symptoms and were recategorized as presymptomatic at the time of testing. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing cycle threshold (Ct) values indicated large quantities of viral RNA in asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic residents, suggesting the potential for transmission regardless of symptoms. Symptom-based screening in SNFs could fail to identify approximately half of residents with COVID-19. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 (3). Once a confirmed case is identified in an SNF, all residents should be placed on isolation precautions if possible (3), with considerations for extended use or reuse of personal protective equipment (PPE) as needed (4).

Evidence for Limited Early Spread of COVID-19 Within the United States, January-February 2020.

From January 21 through February 23, 2020, public health agencies detected 14 U.S. cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), all related to travel from China (1,2). The first nontravel-related U.S. case was confirmed on February 26 in a California resident who had become ill on February 13 (3). Two days later, on February 28, a second nontravel-related case was confirmed in the state of Washington (4,5). Examination of four lines of evidence provides insight into the timing of introduction and early transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, into the United States before the detection of these two cases. First, syndromic surveillance based on emergency department records from counties affected early by the pandemic did not show an increase in visits for COVID-19-like illness before February 28. Second, retrospective SARS-CoV-2 testing of approximately 11,000 respiratory specimens from several U.S. locations beginning January 1 identified no positive results before February 20. Third, analysis of viral RNA sequences from early cases suggested that a single lineage of virus imported directly or indirectly from China began circulating in the United States between January 18 and February 9, followed by several SARS-CoV-2 importations from Europe. Finally, the occurrence of three cases, one in a California resident who died on February 6, a second in another resident of the same county who died February 17, and a third in an unidentified passenger or crew member aboard a Pacific cruise ship that left San Francisco on February 11, confirms cryptic circulation of the virus by early February. These data indicate that sustained, community transmission had begun before detection of the first two nontravel-related U.S. cases, likely resulting from the importation of a single lineage of virus from China in late January or early February, followed by several importations from Europe. The widespread emergence of COVID-19 throughout the United States after February highlights the importance of robust public health systems to respond rapidly to emerging infectious threats.

Engaging an unstably housed population with low-barrier buprenorphine treatment at a syringe services program: Lessons learned from Seattle, Washington.

Background: Clinic-imposed barriers can impede access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We evaluated a low-barrier buprenorphine program that is co-located with a syringe services program (SSP) in Seattle, Washington, USA. Methods: We analyzed medical record data corresponding to patients who enrolled into the buprenorphine program in its first year of operation. We used descriptive statistics and tests of association to longitudinally evaluate retention, cumulative number of days buprenorphine was prescribed, and toxicology results. Results: Demand for buprenorphine among SSP clients initially surpassed programmatic capacity. Of the 146 enrolled patients, the majority (82%) were unstably housed. Patients were prescribed buprenorphine for a median of 47 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 8-147) in the 180 days following enrollment. Between the first and sixth visits, the percentage of toxicology tests that was positive for buprenorphine significantly increased (33% to 96%, P < .0001) and other opioids significantly decreased (90% to 41%, P < .0001) and plateaued thereafter. Toxicology test results for stimulants, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates did not significantly change. Conclusions: SSP served as an effective point of entry for a low-barrier MOUD program. A large proportion of enrolled patients demonstrated sustained retention and reductions in opioid use, despite housing instability and polysubstance use.

Occupational exposures and programmatic response to COVID-19 pandemic: an emergency medical services experience.

Rigorous assessment of occupational COVID-19 risk and personal protective equipment (PPE) use is not well-described. We evaluated 9-1-1 emergency medical services (EMS) encounters for patients with COVID-19 to assess occupational exposure, programmatic strategies to reduce exposure and PPE use. We conducted a retrospective cohort investigation of laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19 in King County, Washington, USA, who received 9-1-1 EMS responses from 14 February 2020 to 26 March 2020. We reviewed dispatch, EMS and public health surveillance records to evaluate the temporal relationship between exposure and programmatic changes to EMS operations designed to identify high-risk patients, protect the workforce and conserve PPE. There were 274 EMS encounters for 220 unique COVID-19 patients involving 700 unique EMS providers with 988 EMS person-encounters. Use of 'full' PPE including mask (surgical or N95), eye protection, gown and gloves (MEGG) was 67%. There were 151 person-exposures among 129 individuals, who required 981 quarantine days. Of the 700 EMS providers, 3 (0.4%) tested positive within 14 days of encounter, though these positive tests were not attributed to occupational exposure from inadequate PPE. Programmatic changes were associated with a temporal reduction in exposures. When stratified at the study encounters midpoint, 94% (142/151) of exposures occurred during the first 137 EMS encounters compared with 6% (9/151) during the second 137 EMS encounters (p<0.01). By the investigation's final week, EMS deployed MEGG PPE in 34% (3579/10 468) of all EMS person-encounters. Less than 0.5% of EMS providers experienced COVID-19 illness within 14 days of occupational encounter. Programmatic strategies were associated with a reduction in exposures, while achieving a measured use of PPE.

Infectious Diseases Physicians: Improving and Protecting the Public's Health: Why Equitable Compensation Is Critical.

Infectious diseases (ID) physicians play a crucial role in public health in a variety of settings. Unfortunately, much of this work is undercompensated despite the proven efficacy of public health interventions such as hospital acquired infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, disease surveillance, and outbreak response. The lack of compensation makes it difficult to attract the best and the brightest to the field of ID, threatening the future of the ID workforce. Here, we examine compensation data for ID physicians compared to their value in population and public health settings and suggest policy recommendations to address the pay disparities that exist between cognitive and procedural specialties that prevent more medical students and residents from entering the field. All ID physicians should take an active role in promoting the value of the subspecialty to policymakers and influencers as well as trainees.