Approach to intrapartum fever during the COVID-19 pandemic: A New York City Hospital experience.

The yield of repeat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronovirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing for intrapartum fever in patients admitted to labor and delivery negative for SARS-CoV-2 on admission testing is unknown. From October 2020 to June 2022, we performed a retrospective study of 151/3,168 (4.8%) patients who had repeat testing for intrapartum fever. One (0.7%) patient was SARS-CoV-2-positive suggesting repeat SARS-CoV-2 testing for intrapartum fever is generally not warranted nor is separating birthing dyads while awaiting test results.

SARS-CoV-2 testing, positivity, and factors associated with COVID-19 among people with HIV across Europe in the multinational EuroSIDA cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although people with HIV might be at risk of severe outcomes from infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; coronavirus 2019 [COVID-19]), regional and temporal differences in SARS-CoV-2 testing in people with HIV across Europe have not been previously described. METHODS: We described the proportions of testing, positive test results, and hospitalizations due to COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 in the EuroSIDA cohort and the factors associated with being tested for SARS-CoV-2 and with ever testing positive. RESULTS: Of 9012 participants, 2270 (25.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 24.3-26.1) had a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test during the study period (range: 38.3% in Northern to 14.6% in Central-Eastern Europe). People from Northern Europe, women, those aged <40 years, those with CD4 cell count <350 cells/mm3, and those with previous cardiovascular disease or malignancy were significantly more likely to have been tested, as were people with HIV in 2021 compared with those in 2020. Overall, 390 people with HIV (4.3%, 95% CI 3.9-4.8) tested positive (range: 2.6% in Northern to 7.1% in Southern Europe), and the odds of testing positive were higher in all regions than in Northern Europe and in 2021 than in 2020. In total, 64 people with HIV (0.7%, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) were hospitalized, of whom 12 died. Compared with 2020, the odds of positive testing decreased in all regions in 2021, and the associations with cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate disappeared in 2021. Among study participants, 58.9% received a COVID-19 vaccine (range: 72.0% in Southern to 14.8% in Eastern Europe). CONCLUSIONS: We observed large heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity and a low proportion of hospital admissions and deaths across the regions of Europe.

Asymptomatic Testing of Hospital Admissions for SARS-CoV-2: Is it OK to Stop?

Universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing of all persons admitted to acute care hospitals has become common practice. We describe why 1 hospital discontinued this practice after weighing potential benefits against known harms. Considerations around the benefits shifted as we saw a decline in SARS-CoV-2 community transmission and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity of illness, increased availability of vaccines and treatments, and better understood the many other transmission pathways in the healthcare environment. Considerations around harms included the additional strain on laboratory and infection prevention resources, and several unintended adverse consequences of admission screening for patients, including unnecessary isolation, antiviral treatments, and delays in care delivery. Poor test performance for detection of infectiousness also played a significant role in determining to stop universal screening. No increase in hospital-onset COVID-19 has been documented since discontinuation of admission testing. We continue to apply other established layers of prevention while monitoring for any change in incidence of within-facility transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Preventing and controlling intra-hospital spread of COVID-19 in Taiwan - Looking back and moving forward.

COVID-19 has exposed major weaknesses in the healthcare settings. The surge in COVID-19 cases increases the demands of health care, endangers vulnerable patients, and threats occupational safety. In contrast to a hospital outbreak of SARS leading to a whole hospital quarantined, at least 54 hospital outbreaks following a COVID-19 surge in the community were controlled by strengthened infection prevention and control measures for preventing transmission from community to hospitals as well as within hospitals. Access control measures include establishing triage, epidemic clinics, and outdoor quarantine stations. Visitor access restriction is applied to inpatients to limit the number of visitors. Health monitoring and surveillance is applied to healthcare personnel, including self-reporting travel declaration, temperature, predefined symptoms, and test results. Isolation of the confirmed cases during the contagious period and quarantine of the close contacts during the incubation period are critical for containment. The target populations and frequency of SARS-CoV-2 PCR and rapid antigen testing depend on the level of transmission. Case investigation and contact tracing should be comprehensive to identify the close contacts to prevent further transmission. These facility-based infection prevention and control strategies help reduce hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to a minimum in Taiwan.

COVID-19 Related Facilitators and Barriers to In-Person Learning for Children With Intellectual and Development Disabilities: A Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and the staff who support them were largely in-person during the 2021-2022 school year, despite their continued vulnerability to infection with SARS-CoV-2. This qualitative study aimed to understand continued perceptions of weekly SARS-CoV-2 screening testing of students and staff amidst increased availability of vaccinations. METHODS: Twenty-three focus groups were held with school staff and parents of children with IDD to examine the perceptions of COVID-19 during the 2021-2022 school year. Responses were analyzed using a directed thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: Four principal themes were identified: strengths and opportunities of school- and district-level mitigation policies; experience at school with the return to in-person learning; facilitators and barriers to participation in SARS-CoV-2 screening testing; and perceptions of SARS-CoV-2 testing in light of vaccine availability. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH POLICY, PRACTICE, AND EQUITY: Despite the increased availability of vaccines, school staff and families agreed that saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 screening testing helped increase comfort with in-person learning as long as the virus was present in the community. CONCLUSION: To keep children with IDD in school during the pandemic, families found SARS-CoV-2 screening testing important. Clearly communicating school policies and mitigation strategies facilitated peace of mind and confidence in the school district.

COVID-19 Incidence Proportion as a Function of Regional Testing Strategy, Vaccination Coverage, and Vaccine Type.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a serious challenge for humanity almost everywhere globally. Despite active vaccination around the world, the incidence proportion in different countries varies significantly as of May 2022. The reason may be a combination of demographic, immunological, and epidemiological factors. The purpose of this study was to analyze possible relationships between COVID-19 incidence proportion in the population and the types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines used in different countries globally, taking into account demographic and epidemiological factors. Materials and methods: An initial database was created of demographic and immunoepidemiological information about the COVID-19 situation in 104 countries collected from published official sources and repository data. The baseline included, for each country, population size and density; SARS-CoV-2 testing coverage; vaccination coverage; incidence proportion; and a list of vaccines that were used, including their relative share among all vaccinations. Subsequently, the initial data set was stratified by population and vaccination coverage. The final data set was subjected to statistical processing both in general and taking into account population testing coverage. Results: After formation of the final data set (including 53 countries), it turned out that reported COVID-19 case numbers correlated most strongly with testing coverage and the proportions of vaccine types used, specifically, mRNA (V1); vector (V2); peptide/protein (V3); and whole-virion/inactivated (V4). Due to the fact that an inverse correlation was found between 'reported COVID-19 case numbers' with V2, V3, and V4, these three vaccine types were also combined into one analytic group, 'non-mRNA group' vaccines (Vnmg). When the relationship between vaccine type and incidence proportion was examined, minimum incidence proportion was noted at V1:Vnmg ratios (%:%) from 0:100 to 30:70. Maximum incidence proportion was seen with V1:Vnmg from 80:20 to 100:0. On the other hand, we have shown that the number of reported COVID-19 cases in different countries largely depends on testing coverage. To offset this factor, countries with low and extremely high levels of testing were excluded from the data set; it was then confirmed that the largest number of reported COVID-19 cases occurred in countries with a dominance of V1 vaccines. The fewest reported cases were seen in countries with a dominance of Vnmg vaccines. Conclusion: In this paper, we have shown for the first time that the level of reported COVID-19 incidence proportion depends not only on SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination coverage, which is quite logical, but probably also on the vaccine types used. With the same vaccination level and testing coverage, those countries that predominantly use vector and whole-virion vaccines feature incidence proportion that is significantly lower than countries that predominantly use mRNA vaccines.

Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection.

Background: Healthcare workers face a risk of infection during aerosol-generating procedures, such as nasal swabbing. Robot-assisted nasopharyngeal sampling aims to minimize this risk and reduce stress for healthcare providers. However, its effectiveness and safety require validation. Methods: We conducted a controlled trial with 80 subjects at two teaching hospitals and compared robot-collected vs manually-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcomes included specimen quality and success rate of nasopharyngeal swab collection. We also recorded the pain index, duration of the collection, and psychological stress using a post-collection questionnaire. Results: During the study period, from September 23 to October 27, 2020, 40 subjects were enrolled in both the robotic and manual groups. The cycle threshold (Ct) value for nasopharyngeal specimens was statistically higher in the robotic group compared to the manual group (30.9 vs 28.0, p < 0.01). Both groups had Ct values under 35, indicating good quality specimens. In the robotic group, 3 out of 40 subjects required a second attempt at specimen collection, resulting in a success rate of 92.5 %. Further, although the pain levels were lower in the robotic group, the difference was not statistically significant (2.8 vs 3.6, p = 0.07). The manual group had a shorter sampling time, which was 29 s (201 vs 29, p < 0.05). However, when factoring in the time needed to put on personal protective equipment, the average time for the manual group increased to 251 s (201 vs 251, p < 0.05). Participants' questionnaire results show comparable psychological stress in both groups. Medical staff expressed that using a robot would reduce their psychological stress. Conclusions: We propose a safe and effective robotic technology for collecting nasopharyngeal specimens without face-to-face contact, which may reduce the stress of physicians and nurses. This technology can also be optimized for efficiency, making it useful in situations where droplet-transmitted infectious diseases are a concern.

Were SARS-CoV-2 self-tests used for their intended purpose? The experience in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Self-testing has been promoted as a means of increasing COVID-19 test coverage. In Belgium, self-testing was recommended as a complement to the formal, provider-administered indications, such as out of courtesy before meeting others and when feared to be infected. More than a year after the introduction of self-testing their place in the test strategy was evaluated. METHODS: We assessed trends in the number of self-tests sold, the number of positive self-tests reported, the proportion sold self-tests/total tests, and the proportion of all positive tests that were confirmed self-tests. To evaluate the reason why people use self-tests, we used the results of two online surveys among members of the general population: one among 27,397 people, held in April 2021, and one among 22,354 people, held in December 2021. RESULTS: The use of self-tests became substantial from end 2021 onwards. In the period mid-November 2021 - end-of-June 2022, the average proportion of reported sold self-tests to all COVID-19 tests was 37% and 14% of all positive tests were positive self-tests. In both surveys, the main reported reasons for using a self-test were having symptoms (34% of users in April 2021 and 31% in December 2021) and after a risk contact (27% in both April and December). Moreover, the number of self-tests sold, and the number of positive self-tests reported closely followed the same trend as the provider-administered tests in symptomatic people and high risk-contacts, which reinforces the hypothesis that they were mainly used for these two indications. CONCLUSIONS: From end 2021 onwards, self-testing covered a significant part of COVID-19 testing in Belgium, which increased without doubt the testing coverage. However, the available data seem to indicate that self-testing was mostly used for indications outside of official recommendations. If and how this affected the control of the epidemic remains unknown.

SARS-CoV-2 testing, infection and places of contamination in France, a national cross-sectional study, December 2021.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe the use of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 in France until December 2021, the characteristics of people infected, and places of contamination. METHODS: Data were collected from the national 2021 Health Barometer cross-sectional study, which was conducted between February and December 2021 and included French-speaking individuals aged 18-85 years old selected through randomly generated landline and mobile phone numbers. Participants were interviewed about COVID-19-like symptoms in the previous 12 months, diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2, positive diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2, and the place(s) of contamination. Determinants of diagnostic testing and of infection were studied using univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions. RESULTS: A total of 24,514 persons participated in the study. We estimated that 66.4% [65.0-67.7] of persons had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 the last time they experienced COVID-19-like symptoms, and that 9.8% [9.3-10.3] of the population in France - with or without symptoms - had been tested positive. Diagnostic testing was less frequent in men, unemployed persons, and people living alone; it was also less frequent during the first months of the pandemic. The estimated proportion of the population infected was higher in healthcare professionals (PRa: 1.5 [1.3-1.7]), those living in large cities ( > = 200 000 inhabitants, and Paris area) (1.4 [1.2-1.6]), and in households comprising > 3 persons (1.7 [1.5-2.0]). It was lower in retired persons (0.8 [0.6-0.97]) and those over 65 years old (0.6 [0.4-0.9]). Almost two-thirds (65.7%) of infected persons declared they knew where they were contaminated; 5.8% [4.5-7.4] reported being contaminated outdoors, 47.9% [44.8-51.0] in unventilated indoor environments, and 43.4% [40.3-46.6] in ventilated indoor environments. Specifically, 51.1% [48.0-54.2] declared they were contaminated at home or in a family of friend's house, 29.1% [26.4-31.9] at their workplace, 13.9% [11.9-16.1] in a healthcare structure, and 9.0% [7.4-10.8] in a public eating place (e.g., cafeteria, bar, restaurant). CONCLUSIONS: To limit viral spread, preventive actions should preferentially target persons tested least frequently and those at a higher risk of infection. They should also target contamination in households, healthcare structures, and public eating places. Importantly, contamination is most frequent in places where prevention measures are most difficult to implement.

Values of COVID-19 Self-Testing among Urban and Rural South Africans: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Self-testing for COVID-19 may be a preferable strategy for identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection among populations in low- and middle-income settings. To determine South Africans' values related to COVID-19 self-testing should it become widely available, a cross-sectional survey was administered in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal Province and the King Sabata Dalindyebo sub-district of the Eastern Cape. A 35-question survey was administered to 531 participants (268 female) in one urban and one rural setting of South Africa. Survey participants were randomly selected by household in the rural setting, while in the urban setting participants were approached in randomly selected public places. The survey assessed participants' likelihood of using and willingness to pay for a COVID-19 self-test and actions they would take following a COVID-19 self-test. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics and bivariate and multivariate regression. Overall, 93.03% of participants supported COVID-19 self-testing, 61.62% of participants were willing to pay for self-testing, and 90.15% indicated they would communicate their results if they tested positive. Rural participants were more positively associated with each of these outcomes compared with urban-based participants. Should they test positive, most participants said they would: go in-person to a health facility for counselling (76.45%), self-isolate (95.85%), notify close contacts (97.74%), and inform their employer (95.14%). COVID-19 self-testing was a preferable option for most participants, although this varied with setting and demographic characteristics. Self-testing may overcome barriers to care for South Africans, but to achieve this, policies for self-testing and delivery methods must not exacerbate individuals' underlying economic vulnerabilities.

COVID-19-Related Facilitators and Barriers to In-Person Learning for Children With Intellectual and Development Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Schools provide essential functions for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), but their vulnerability to infection with SARS-CoV-2 are a barrier to in-person learning. This qualitative study aimed to understand how weekly SARS-CoV-2 screening testing of students and staff could best facilitate in-school learning during the pandemic. METHODS: Thirty-one focus groups were held with school staff and parents of children with IDD to examine the perceptions of COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 school year. Responses were analyzed using a directed thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: Five principal themes were identified: risks of returning to in-person learning; facilitators and barriers to participation in SARS-CoV-2 screening testing; messaging strategies; and preferred messengers. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH POLICY, PRACTICE, AND EQUITY: Staff and families agreed that saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 screening testing helps increase comfort with in-person learning. Screening testing increased family and school staff comfort with in-person learning particularly because many students with special needs cannot adhere to public health guidelines. CONCLUSION: To keep children with IDD in school during the pandemic, families found SARS-CoV-2 screening testing important, particularly for students that cannot adhere to mitigation guidelines.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Testing and Detection During Peripartum Hospitalizations Among a Multicenter Cohort of Pregnant Persons: March 2020-February 2021.

BACKGROUND: Identifying severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections during peripartum hospitalizations is important to guide care, implement prevention measures, and understand infection burden. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record data from hospitalizations during which pregnancies ended (peripartum hospitalizations) among a cohort of pregnant persons at 3 US integrated healthcare networks (sites 1-3). Maternal demographic, medical encounter, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and pregnancy and neonatal outcome information was extracted for persons with estimated delivery and pregnancy end dates during March 2020-February 2021 and ≥1 antenatal care record. Site-stratified multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with testing and compare pregnancy and neonatal outcomes among persons tested. RESULTS: Among 17 858 pregnant persons, 10 863 (60.8%) had peripartum SARS-CoV-2 testing; 222/10 683 (2.0%) had positive results. Testing prevalence varied by site and was lower during March-May 2020. Factors associated with higher peripartum SARS-CoV-2 testing odds were Asian race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.79; referent: White) (site 1), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (aOR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.64) (site 2), peripartum Medicaid coverage (aOR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06-1.66) (site 1), and preterm hospitalization (aOR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.19-2.39 [site 1]; aOR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.03-1.88 [site 2]). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight potential disparities in SARS-CoV-2 peripartum testing by demographic and pregnancy characteristics. Testing practice variations should be considered when interpreting studies relying on convenience samples of pregnant persons testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Efforts to address testing differences between groups could improve equitable testing practices and care for pregnant persons with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Group Testing Matrix Design for PCR Screening with Real-Valued Measurements.

Single-step nonadaptive group testing approaches for reducing the number of tests required to detect a small subset of positive samples from a larger set require solving two algorithmic problems. First, how to design the samples-to-tests measurement matrix, and second, how to decode the results of the tests to uncover positive samples. In this study, we focus on the first challenge. We introduce real-valued group testing, which matches the characteristics of existing PCR testing pipelines more closely than combinatorial group testing or compressed sensing settings. We show a set of conditions that allow measurement matrices to guarantee unambiguous decoding of positives in this new setting. For small matrix sizes, we also propose an algorithm for constructing matrices that meet the proposed condition. On simulated data sets, we show that the matrices resulting from the algorithm can successfully recover positive samples at higher positivity rates than matrices designed for combinatorial group testing setting. We use wet laboratory experiments involving SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab samples to further validate the approach.

The Agreement Between Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) in Diagnosing COVID-19.

Background False-negative results derived from RT-PCR tests for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have raised questions about whether to consider them the gold standard for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using an imperfect gold standard to assess other diagnostic tests would never let the other tests show better diagnostic performance. The best strategy in such cases is to do an agreement analysis, and this study aims to estimate the agreement between real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and rapid antigen test (RAT) for COVID-19 detection. Methods A retrospective study was done using paired data of individuals tested for COVID-19, both by RT-PCR and RAT, obtained from the virology laboratory of Government Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India. A sample size of 93 was calculated, and the data were abstracted in a data abstraction sheet. Variables included were results of RT-PCR and RAT, age, gender, presence of symptoms, test kit used, and the time duration between sampling for RT-PCR and RAT. Apart from descriptive statistics, keeping in mind the binary outcome of RT-PCR and RAT, Cohen's kappa was calculated for agreement analysis. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results The data on 100 participants suspected to be infected with COVID-19 (58 male and 42 female) with a mean age of 39.8 (±19.0) years were analysed. The number of discordant pairs was eight. Cohen's kappa showed substantial agreement between RT-PCR and RAT, κ=0.646, (95% CI 0.420 to 0.871), p<0.001. Conclusion Considering the ease of conducting RAT with quick results and substantial agreement with RT-PCR, RAT could be a better choice in detecting SARS-CoV-2 and, hence, COVID-19 disease on a large scale.

COVID-19 and isolation: Risks and implications in the scenario of new variants.

With the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, questions about transmissibility, vaccine efficacy, and impact on mortality are important to support decision-making in public health measures. Modifications related to transmissibility combined with the fact that much of the population has already been partially exposed to infection and/or vaccination, have stimulated recommendations to reduce the isolation period for COVID-19. However, these new guidelines have raised questions about their effectiveness in reducing contamination and minimizing impact in work environments. Therefore, a collaborative task force was developed to review the subject in a non-systematic manner, answering questions about SARS-CoV-2 variants, COVID-19 vaccines, isolation/quarantine periods, testing to end the isolation period, and the use of masks as mitigation procedures. Overall, COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe illness and death but are less effective in preventing infection in the case of the Omicron variant. Any strategy that is adopted to reduce the isolation period should take into consideration the epidemiological situation of the geographical region, individual clinical characteristics, and mask for source control. The use of tests for isolation withdrawal should be evaluated with caution, due to results depending on various conditions and may not be reliable.

Self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 in São Paulo, Brazil: results of a population-based values and attitudes survey.

BACKGROUND: Brazil is among the countries in South America where the COVID-19 pandemic has hit the general population hardest. Self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is one of the community-based strategies that could help asymptomatic individuals at-risk of COVID-19, as well as those living in areas that are difficult for health personnel to reach, to know their infectious status and contribute to impeding further transmission of the virus. METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted in November 2021, to assess the acceptability of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing among the population of São Paulo. Survey respondents were approached at more than 400 different street-points that were randomly selected using a five-stage randomization process. A 35-item structured questionnaire was used. Dependent variables for our analyses were the likelihood to use and willingness to pay for self-testing, and the likelihood of taking preventive measures to prevent onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 following a reactive self-test result. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 417 respondents (44.12% female) participated; 19.66% had previously had COVID-19 disease. A minority (9.59%) felt at high-risk of COVID-19. The majority of both females and males (73.91% and 60.09%, respectively) were in favor of the idea of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. Overall, if self-tests were available, almost half of the sample would be very likely (n = 54, 12.95%) or likely (n = 151, 36.21%) to use one if they felt they needed to. Upon receiving a positive self-test result, the majority of respondents would communicate it (88.49%), request facility-based post-test counseling (98.32%), self-isolate (97.60%), and warn their close contacts (96.64%). CONCLUSION: Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing could be an acceptable screening tool in São Paulo. The population would be empowered by having access to a technology that would allow them to test, even if asymptomatic, when traveling, or going to work or school. If there is a surge in the incidence of cases, self-testing could be a good approach for mass case detection by Brazil's already overstretched Unified Health System.

Are Kenyans Likely to Use COVID-19 Self-Testing Kits? Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey.

Objectives: To understand the public's perceptions around rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing in Kenya, including the drivers of acceptability, willingness to pay, and adherence to hygiene and prevention recommendations following a positive self-test. Methods: A household-based, cross-sectional survey, using a 35-item questionnaire, was conducted in Mombasa and Taita-Taveta counties, Kenya, during August 2021. Individuals aged ≥18 years were enrolled using a stratified sampling approach. Results: There were 419 participants (mean age 35.7 years). A minority (10.5%) had ever tested for SARS-CoV-2. If SARS-CoV-2 self-testing were available, 39.9% and 41.5% would be likely and very likely, respectively, to use it. If unavailable free-of-charge, 63.01% would pay for it. Multivariate analyses suggested that people in rural areas (Coefficient 0.30, 95%CI: 0.11-0.48, p = 0.002), aged 36-55 (Coefficient 0.21, 95%CI: 0.03-0.40, p = 0.023), and employed full time (Coefficient 0.32, 95%CI: 0.06-0.58, p = 0.016) would have more odds to adhere to recommended hygiene and prevention actions. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 self-testing was considered acceptable. Availability of self-testing could expand access to COVID-19 testing in Kenya, particularly among rural communities who have limited access to testing, and among mildly symptomatic individuals.

Taking the Path Into the Dark Woods - Initial Industry Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, each industry experienced hardships. One area that has not been explored in great detail was how the diagnostic industry managed while bringing SARS-CoV-2 tests to the market. This perspective piece provides a sample view of what went on behind the walls of a diagnostic manufacturer that released one of the initial SARS-CoV-2 testing options, some of the barriers that were encountered, and how they could be overcome.

Effect of Frequent SARS-CoV-2 Testing on Weekly Case Rates in Long-Term Care Facilities, Florida, USA.

We analyzed 1,292,165 SARS-CoV-2 test results from residents and employees of 361 long-term care facilities in Florida, USA. A 1% increase in testing resulted in a 0.08% reduction in cases 3 weeks after testing began. Increasing SARS-CoV-2 testing frequency is a viable tool for reducing virus transmission in these facilities.

Inter-laboratory testing as a strategy for external quality assessment for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR testing in India.

To implement the strategy of test, track and treat to tackle the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the number of real-time RT-PCR-based testing laboratories was increased for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the country. To ensure reliability of the laboratory results, the Indian Council of Medical Research initiated external quality assessment (EQA) by deploying inter-laboratory quality control (ILQC) activity for these laboratories by nominating 34 quality control (QC) laboratories. This report presents the results of this activity for a period of September 2020 till November 2020. A total of 597 laboratories participated in this activity and 86 per cent of these scored ≥90 per cent concordance with QC laboratories. This ILQC activity showcased India's preparedness in quality diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.